Court upheld the appellate authority's restriction of liability for unauthorized electricity usage to 12 months due to lack of evidence for a longer period as per Electricity Act.

JUDGMENT

The Kerala State Electricity Board, Ernakulam, challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the Kerala State Electricity Appellate Authority in an appeal preferred by the 1^st respondent consumer against the final assessment order issued by the Board, alleging unauthorised additional load under Section 126 of the Electricity Act , 2003.

2. On an inspection of the premises of the 1^st respondent on 23.01.2023, it was alleged that the petitioner was using an unauthorised additional load of 9815 watts over and above the sanctioned load, for a period of 36 months. Accordingly, a provisional assessment order was issued on 25.01.2023, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,82,990/-. The said amount was revised in the final assessment proceedings dated 27.03.2023, and the amount was reduced to Rs.3,77,651/-.

3. Against the final assessment order, the 1^st respondent consumer preferred an appeal in which the appellate authority found that there was no evidence to show the actual period during which the unauthorised use of electricity took place and accordingly limited the period to 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection, going by Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act , 2003.

4. The appellate authority therefore directed to levy both fixed charges and proportionate energy charges under the LT VII - A tariff for 9815 watts for the period of 12 months from 24.01.2022 to 23.01.2023.

5. Challenging the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner Board submits that the consumption pattern for the 36 months, which was reckoned in the final assessment order, was correct and that it was based on the make of the air conditioners installed on the premises and that the said pattern during the assessment period shows the existence of some additional load.

6. The appellate authority found that the make of the air conditioners was not conclusive evidence to prove either the year of purchase or the installation of the same, and that increased consumption can be taken as supporting evidence and not as evidence to ascertain the exact period of unauthorised use. It is also stated that the consumption can increase even in the sanctioned load when the working hours increase.

The reasoning of the appellate authority cannot be said to be illegal, warranting interference in a judicial review. The appellate authority has rightly restricted the period to 12 months by virtue of Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act , 2003. In the absence of any acceptable evidence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-