Proper burden of proof concerning unauthorized load assessment lies with the utility provider, not the consumer.

JUDGMENT

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, has filed this writ petition, challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority.

2. The second respondent herein is a consumer bearing No.1145256023026 under LT VII A Commercial tariff with a sanctioned connected load of 1600 watts under the Electrical Section, Varkala. Consequent to an inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad, Thiruvananthapuram, on 20.08.2022, it was found that there was an aggregate load of 17674 watts connected as an unauthorised additional load, which is 16kW over and above the sanctioned load of 1600 watts.

3. A provisional assessment order was issued on 23.08.2022 demanding Rs.3,05,219/-. Later, a final assessment order was issued on 13.09.2022, revising the assessment to Rs.2,94,391/-. The second respondent consumer had challenged the final assessment order before the Appellate Authority, resulting in Ext.P8 order, which is impugned in this writ petition.

4. It is not in dispute that a three-phase connection was effected on 17.07.2020 with a sanctioned load of 1600 watts. In the inspection on 20.08.2022, an unauthorised additional load of 16kW, over and above the sanctioned load, was found. The appellate authority, relying on Regulation 98, which dealt with the reclassification of consumer category on the request of the consumer, under the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code 2014, found that the second respondent consumer had applied for a tariff change on 22.03.2021, and the licensee had effected the tariff change on the same day itself.

5. The appellate authority found that in the application for tariff change, there is a column for recording connected load, and since the construction purpose and commercial purpose are entirely different, the connected load of both purposes would be different, and the licensee was bound to verify the connected load along with the usage. Despite finding that there was no application for enhancement of the load, the appellate authority found that the unauthorised additional load can only be proved based on the sanctioned connected load at the time of tariff change and, in the instant case, since the connected load at the time of tariff change could not be ascertained in view of the lack of substantial evidence, as neither the consumer nor the licensee could produce the application for tariff change, the consumer was given the benefit of doubt and ultimately finding that the existence of unauthorised additional load could not be proved, allowed the appeal in favour of the consumer.

6. The appellate authority has completely gone wrong in relying on Regulation 98, which dealt with the reclassification of consumer category on the request of the consumer, to hold that since Annexure 10 application form contains a column for specifying the sanctioned load, the licensee ought to have seen this before allowing the tariff change. True, the application form did contain a column for that. However, the same cannot mean that even in the absence of an application for enhancement of the connected load, the application for a tariff change should be treated as one resulting in enhancement of the load. If the same is accepted, that will lead to disastrous consequences. The consumer later made an application for an additional load, which was later allowed. The reasoning of the appellate authority to hold that there is no unauthorised additional load, relying on Regulation 98, was completely unwarranted.

7. Under such circumstances, the order of the appellate authority cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order is set aside with a direction to the Electricity Appellate Authority to rehear Appeal No.72 of 2022 and pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, within three months from the date