JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC.249/09 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. Bills issued by the appellants stands cancelled. Further it is directed that the amount of Rs.3000/- remitted by the complainant to be adjusted in future bills and also to reconsider the issue of additional connected load and to provide an opportunity to the complainant to be heard.
2. The matter is with respect to Ext.A2 and A3 bills issued amounting to Rs.16,943/- consequent to the inspection by the APTS. It was found that the complainant was running a home stay by name Suchee Home Stay, Burnacherry. Ext.B1 is the mahazer prepared by the APTS. It was found that there was 5 KW excess connected load. Applying Section 126 of the Electricity Act and Regulation 50 (5) and (6) of the Conditions of Supply the Board issued the additional bill for 12 months previous consumption at the rate of commercial tariff and for unauthorized additional load at 2 times of fixed charges.
3. It is admitted that there was a board of Home stay in the premises. The case of the complainant that the board has been installed to find out the potential of possible tourists only is seen accepted by the CDRF. The CDRF has also found that as per Section 50(6) of the Conditions of Supply, the bill can be only equal to 1 ½ times the tariff. The Forum was also inclined to accept the contention of the complainant that he had applied for regularization although the same is not supported by any objective evidence.
4. From Ext.B7 calculation statement we find that the energy charges have been calculated only at commercial tariff and not double of the commercial rate. Only additional connected load has been charged with respect to fixed charges at double. We find that the contention of the complainant that she had put up the Board only to ascertain the potential of tourists stay cannot be accepted. She has removed the name board only after the inspection by the APTS. The contention that she had applied for regularization also cannot be believed in the absence of any objective evidence. The finding that the assessment can only be at rate equal to 1 ½ times is also incorrect as vide the amendment in 2007 the rate applicable is 2 times. In the circumstances we find that the order of the Forum is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Hence the order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.