IMPORTANT POINT
Setting aside the Bill – As per Section 56(2) of Electricity Act, 2003 the view taken by the District Commission in setting aside the bill is perfectly correct.

ORDER

Ajith Kumar D., Presiding Member—This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 127/2013 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (District Commission for short). On 28/11/2014 the complaint was allowed by setting aside the arrear bill issued by the opposite party. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order this appeal has been filed.

2. The case in the complaints in short is that: They are running a hotel for the purpose of the earning their livelihood by means of self employment. A three phase electricity connection was provided by the opposite party to the premises . The opposite party had issued a short assessment bill amounting to Rs.15,48,010/- alleging non regularization of unauthorized connection load of 15 KW detected in 2006. The bill was issued without considering the contention of the complainant. The demand

is barred by limitation. The complainant had sought for an order by setting aside the disputed bill.

3. The opposite parties had entered appearance and filed written version that the 2nd complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005. An unauthorized additional load of 15 KW was detected against the authorized load of 8 KW. This anomaly was detected during the audit conducted by the Regional Audit Wing of the KSEB. Bills were issued only with the fixed charge for 23 KW instead of 8 KW for the period from 22/08/2006 to 15/01/2013. The 1st complainant is liable to pay penalty as per 15 KW of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. Hence additional demand was raised and the complainants are bound to pay the amount. The opposite parties had sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on their side. Opposite party was examined as RW1 Ext.B1 to B6 were also marked.

5. During the pendency of the appeal the 1st respondent/1st complainant was reported dead whose legal heir was additionally impleaded as 3rd respondent/3rd opposite party as per IA.1407/2016.

6. In the appeal memorandum the main contention raised by the appellant was that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the dictum laid down by the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Limited Vs. Anis Ahmad reported in (2013) 8 SCC 491. The District Commission ought to have found that the complainant is not a consumer as he was running a hotel for commercial purpose. Another contention of the appellant is that the 2 years period of limitation contained in Section.56(2) of Electricity Act 2003 will start to run only from the date of issuance of the bill as settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in “Sunderdas P. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board” reported in (2009) (2) KLT SN 5. Hence, the appellant would seek for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.

7. The records from the District Commission were called for. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

8. We have carefully examined the records and the evidence let in by both parties.

9. The learned counsel of the appellant would submit that the opposite party had filed written notes of argument before the District Commission with a specific contention that the complaint was not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in UP Power Corporation Limited Vs. Anis Ahmad. But the District Commission never considered this aspect in the order. According to the learned counsel unauthorized load was detected by the squad by inspecting the premises on 22/08/2016. The demand was also raised by the resorting the Sec.126 of Electricity Act. Apex Court in UP Power Corporation Limited took a view that the transactions of persons indulging in unauthorized use of electricity under Sec. 126 of Electricity Act 2003 did not come within the scope of a complaint as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Here consequent to the detection of the unauthorized load penalty was impose