M V UMESHAN Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has an electricity connection to his Ice Plant under LT-IV industrial tariff. He is aggrieved by an additional bill demanding Rs.54,564/-, being 20% of the actual energy charges on the ground that he used electricity without a capacitor, which is a requirement under the relevant provisions applicable to industrial consumers of electricity. Against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal by paying 25% of the demand amounting to Rs.13,641/-. But by Ext.P3 order, the appeal was rejected. Challenging the demand and the appellate order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the non- connection of the capacitor was noted by the Anti-Power Theft Squad (APTS) on 25.7.2003. During the same month the meter reader had taken meter reading on 2.5.2003. On that date, the meter reader did not notice any defects and he served a bill for actual energy charges. That being so, the capacitor must have become non-functional subsequent to 2.5.2003 and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay, if at all, 20% extra only for the month of May. He also submits that the collection of 20% extra is based on the Industrial Tariff notification dated 24.10.2002. According to him, that is not penal charges. The respondents have demanded 20% extra for six months which is not justifiable by any stretch of imagination, especially since the meter reader did not notice any defect in the installation on 2.5.2003 when he took the meter reading is the petitioner's contention. Therefore, according to him, the respondents cannot recover 20% additional charges for more than a month.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board submits that it is the duty of the petitioner to inform the Board immediately when the capacitor became non- functional. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, as per the Tariff Notification, in the event of the static capacitor becoming faulty or unserviceable, the consumer is bound to intimate the matter to the Asst. Engineer/Asst. Executive Engineer of the concerned Electrical Section/Major Section forthwith and the consumer is bound to make immediate arrangements for repair. Such repair shall be carried out within two weeks also. The petitioner has not chosen to inform the officer of the Board, despite he having been aware of the capacitor having been burnt. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that it became defective only after 2.5.2003 cannot be accepted on face value, is the contention raised. Therefore, the Board had to fix the period during which the capacitor was not non-functional. They adopted a reasonable period namely, six months, which cannot be faulted is the contention raised.