Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.488/2014
JUDGMENT DATED 30/03/2016
(Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.43/2010 dt.31/7/2014 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- The Secretary, Kerala State
Electricity Board, Pattom P.O.,
- The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Electricity Section, Kaduthuruthi P.O.,
Kottayam-686 604.
(By Adv: B. Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs
RESPONDENT:
The Kaduthuruthy Co-operative Hospital Ltd.,
No.K.379, Kaduthuruthy P.O., Kottayam-686 604.
(By Adv: Emmanual Thomas)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
The opposite parties are the appellants herein who preferred the appeal against the order in C.C.No.43/2010 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The respondent is the complainant.
2. The complainant is a charitable co-operative hospital having Consumer No.21311 who availed electric connection under VI (B) tariff of the opposite party. In order to install an X-ray with 100 MA capacity the complainant applied for regularization of electricity connection in August 2006. A notice was issued to the complainant to inform the present connected load and the sanction was given for installation on 26/10/2006. As per the order the connected load was 8 KW. On 28/2/2009 the opposite parties issued a notice to remit Rs.27,458/- as security deposit for additional load. The 2nd opposite party on 30/10/2009 inspected the premises and prepared a mahazar and calculated the use of electrical energy as 23071. It is alleged in the complaint that the mahazar showing the penal assessment and unauthorized load is not correct. On 31/10/2009 a bill for an amount of Rs.64,000/- as provisional assessment was issued. A complaint was filed by the complainant as C.C.No.358/09 wherein the opposite parties were directed to hear the objection of the complainant before issuing the provisional bill. Thereafter on 4/1/2010 the opposite party without considering or properly hearing the complainant, issued the final bill. This act of the opposite party fixing the connected load amounts to deficiency of service. The opposite parties also issued notice dated 22/2/2010 to the complainant stating that failure to remit the amount of Rs.64,000/- will lead to disconnection of electricity connection. It is stated in the complaint that the disconnection of electricity certainly will stop the functioning of the hospital which is running under the Charitable co-operative Sector. The complaint is filed to set-aside the bill for Rs.64,000/- to assess connected load, to re-fix the amount and also for compensation and cost.
3. The opposite parties filed version contending that in C.C.No.358/09 filed before the Consumer Forum wherein the complainant had not filed any objection against the provisional assessment. It is also contended that the complainant had not filed any appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer who is the appeal authority in the present case. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party having consumer No.21311 under Tariff LT VI(B), the concessional tariff, for hospitals registered under Charitable Institutions Act. The registered connected load as per the agreement between the complainant and the opposite party was 10000 watts. The security deposit became insufficient as the consumption increased and the deposit amount increased on 28/2/2009 to Rs.27,458/-. The increase in consumption is an indicator of additional connected load and vice versa. During inspection conducted on 30/10/2009 by the Inspection Squad it was found out that the complainant was having connected power load without the permission of the opposite party.
