IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11444 of 2006(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.R.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAN, POOVATHINKAL HOUSE, CHERUKULAM P.O, KOTTAYI, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KOTTAYI, PALGHAT. 2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALGHAT. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PARALI,PALGHAT. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.11444/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE BILL FOR JUNE 2005 P2 COPY OF THE BILL FOR JULY 2005 P3 COPY OF THE BILL FOR AUGUST 2005 P4 COPY OF THE INSTALLMENT ORDER DT. 22/9/2005 P5 COPY OF THE PETITION TO MINISTER. P6 COPY OF THE REPORT OF R2 DT. 19/12/2005. P7 COPY OF THE LETTER OF R2 DT.20/3/2006. P8 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 7/3/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:11444 OF 2006 K ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd January, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of small scale industrial unit manufacturing vermicelli. The industry is being run in a rented premises and is a small scale industrial unit. The petitioner has an electric power connection with consumer No: 7940/LTiv/KTY. According to the petitioner the unit started functioning in June 2005. The power connection was granted on 18/5/2005 after the wiring as well as the installations were inspected and approved by the respondents. Thereafter, the unit started functioning. The first bill for the month of June 2005 is Ext.P1 and is for an amount of Rs.775/-. However, for the next month, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 bill for an amount of Rs.23,944/-. Though as per Ext.P1 bill the petitioner had consumed only 114 units, as per Ext.P2 bill he is shown to have consumed 6682 units. The third bill for the petitioner's unit is produced as Ext.P3 which is only for an amount of Rs.1,546/-. 2. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner objected to the same by pointing out that Ext.P2 bill was incorrect, excessive and unsustainable. He also submitted Ext.P5 to the Minister WPC 11444/2006 2 concerned seeking redressal of his grievances. Pursuant to Ext.P5 it appears that an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Chief Engineer, whose findings are contained in Ext.P6. As per Ext.P6 though it was found that the petitioner has not consumed the energy for which he has been billed as per Ext.P2, he was directed to seek instalment facility for payment of the amount demanded. He declined to do so. When petitioner's power was disconnected the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. On 18/4/2006 the petitioner was granted an interim order on condition that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was deposited towards the amounts payable under the disputed bill. Accordingly on payment of the said amount, electricity connection was restored. It is the case of the petitioner that there has not been any instance of such huge variation in his electricity bill, thereafter. 3. The counsel for the petitioner, Smt. S.Chithra, points out that as per Clause 24 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 a procedure has been prescribed for settling disputes with respect to bills, when raised by consumers. It is contended that the said procedure has not been followed in the case of the petitioner. First of all, on receipt of any complaint from a consumer regarding the correctness of a bill, a review has to be conducted as per sub clause WPC 11444/2006 3 (2) of Clause 24 and a revised bill has to be issued to the consumer, if the review establishes that the bill was not correct. The clause also gives a right of appeal to the petitioner to the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) and a further appeal to the Ombudsman. According to the counsel, the petitioner has been denied the right to avail any of the said remedies, because of the inaction on the part of the respondents. It is contended that even the amount that has been paid as condition for restoration of power supply pursuant to the interim order of this Court is many times more than the actual energy consumed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner prays for the quashing of Exts.P2 and P8. 4. Though this writ petition is of the year 2006, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, there is no answer to the allegations raised in the writ petition. However, after an enquiry into the complaint of the petitioner, Ext.P6 communication of the Deputy Chief Engineer to the concerned Minister very clearly states as follows:- “Referring to the letter cited, I may report that the excess consumption during08/05 was due to the fault in the capacitor. The excess consumption during that particular month may be due to earth leakage through the capacitor. Since the connected load of WPC 11444/2006 4 service is only 8 KW and the power meter in good condition the abnormal consumption during the month is likely to be the reasons aforesaid.” The letter goes on to add that, the consumption of the petitioner before and after this particular month being normal, necessary action may be taken. Though the said communication is dated 19/12/2005, apparently, no action has been taken in the matter thereafter. 5. It is clear from Ext.P6 extracted above that the excess consumption has been found to be attributable to a defective capacitor. Be that as it may, there appears to be absolutely no doubt that the charges demanded in Ext.P2 do not relate to electrical energy actually consumed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no justification for making the petitioner liable for the excess demand made in Ext.P2. Though in Ext.P7 communication, an allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that it was due to the defective capacitor installed in the petitioner's premises that the leakage had occurred, one fails to understand why the defects were not pointed out and rectified before granting connection by the respondents. Ext.P2 is dated 26/8/2005. More than six years have elapsed since the issue of Ext.P2. The WPC 11444/2006 5 authorities have still not thought it fit to ascertain the exact cause of the excess consumption and to fix the responsibility. It is also clear that the procedure prescribed in Clause 24 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 has not been followed. Since the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- which is many times in excess of the normal bill that is actually charged on the petitioner for the electrical energy consumed by him, I do not find any justification for mulcting the petitioner with any further liability in the matter. 6. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P8 is quashed. The payment already made by the petitioner in compliance with the interim order of this Court shall be treated as payment made in full settlement of the amounts demanded in Ext.P2. No costs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 11444/2006 6