IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 199 of 1997()
1. K.S.E.B.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.MADHAVAN NAIR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY KALLANPALLY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :10/06/2009
O R D E R
"CR"
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
A.S. No.199 of 1997
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Defendants 1 and 2 (namely Assistant Executive
Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Major
Section, Koyilandi and the Kerala State Electricity Board,
Thiruvananthapuram) in O.S.No.167 of 1994 on the file of the
Subordinate Judges Court, Koyilandi are the appellants in this
appeal. The said suit, instituted by the respondent herein,
was one for a declaration that Ext.A6 demand notice dated
25.8.1994 is null and void and not legally enforcible and for a
perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from
enforcing payment under the said demand notice.
2. The fact that the plaintiff installed a 1 HP electric
motor with pump set in his house was admitted. The main
contention raised by the plaintiff was that by installing the
pump set he was not committing breach of any of the
provisions of law or the Regulations issued by the Kerala
A.S.No.199 of 1997
2
Electricity Board (KSEB for short). The KSEB on the other
hand contended that by installing the pump set, the plaintiff
was increasing the sanctioned connected load of 400 watts
thereby attracting the penalty under Clause 42(d) of the
Regulations Relating to Conditions of Supply of Electrical
Energy (” Regulations” for short) issued by the KSEB in
exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 79(j) of the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the view that
since the pump set installed by the plaintiff, although without
permission, was used for domestic purpose only, Clause 42(d)
of the Regulations was not attracted. According to the
learned Subordinate Judge, the said provision would be
attracted only if the consumer exceeded the contracted load
for a purpose different from the specific purpose
contemplated under the contract for that tarif. Accordingly,
the suit was decreed granting the declaration as well as
injunction prayed for. Hence this appeal.
4. After hearing both sides, I do not think that the view
A.S.No.199 of 1997
3
taken by the court below is sustainable. The specific case of
the defendants is that by installing the 1 HP pump-set
without the permission of the KSEB and without notice under
Clause 24 of the Regulations, the installation itself was
unauthorised. According to the KSEB, the authorised load for
the plaintiff’s premises was only 400 watts.
5. If Clause 42(d) of the Regulations is attracted, then
there is no dispute that the plaintiff will be treated as having
committed misuse of energy and liable to be billed at three
times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the
previous six months from the date of detection of the misuse
as provided under Clause 42(d) of the Regulations.
Admittedly, the KSEB has billed the plaintiff at the above
rate for a period of two years which is not sanctioned by the
said Clause 42(d).
6. Ext.B12 is a true copy of the relevant page of the
Consumer’s Personal Deposit Register pertaining to the
plaintiff . It shows that a single phase connection to the
plaintiff’s house was given on 21.5.1977 with Consumer
A.S.No.199 of 1997
4
No.902 under Tariff I(a). It also shows that connected load
was 400 watts. The said load of 400 watts was fixed after
taking into account 6 light points and 2 plug points only.
Clause 24 of the Regulations reads as follows:-
” Should the consumer, at any time after the
supply of energy has been commenced, desire to
increase the number of wattage or capacity of
lights, fans or motors etc., on his premises on a
temporary or permanent basis or in any way alter
the position of his wiring therein, notice thereof
must be sent by the consumer in writing to the
Board whose representative will call and inspect
the alteration and, if necessary change meters and
fuses and alter the service line. For this purpose if
a single phase service line is to be converted to
three phase or change of size of conductor to meet
increased maximum demand is necessitated, the
work shall be done at the cost of consumer on
deposit work basis. A test report signed by a
licensed wiring contractor should also be produced
by the consumer along with his application for
extension and alteration. The consumer should
remit the testing fee. Failure to give such notice
A.S.No.199 of 1997
5may derange the supply system and will render the
supply liable to be summarily discontinued.
During such time as alterations, additions or
repairs are being executed, the supply to the
circuit, which is being altered, added to or
repaired, must be entirely disconnected and it
shall remain disconnected until the alterations,
additions or repairs have been tested and passed
by the Board. In the event of any unauthorised
extensions, alterations or repairs resulting in any
damage to the system of the Board, the consumer
will have to pay the Board all expenses on account
of such damages also.
Note:-
i. Supply taken from the existing plug
point/mains to connect up any appliance
installed within the same premises, shall be
treated as additional load irrespective of
length of the connecting lead, if the
appliances installed are for bonafide
purpose.
ii. Supply taken from an existing plug
point/mains to any appliance situated
outside the premises will be treated as an
extension. Such extension should be taken
A.S.No.199 of 1997
6only for temporary purposes.
iii. Supply taken from an existing plug point
for temporary film shows in Government
recognised Educational Institutions is
exempted from payment of testing fee, even
if it will be an extension vide Note (i) and (ii)
above. However, prior intimation should be
given to the local K.S.E.Board office about
this extension.
iv. If the installation remains disconnected for
a period exceeding one year the same shall
be reconnected to the distribution mains
only after conducting the tests prescribed
above.”
7. Thus, if the consumer at any time after supply of
energy has been commenced desires to increase the load on
his premises either on a temporary basis or on a permanent
basis, he has to give a notice in writing to the KSEB. As
already noticed, at the time of giving connection to the
plaintiff and fixing the connected load at 400 watts, 6 light
points & 2 plug points alone were sanctioned. If so, before
installing a 1 HP motor and pump-set, the plaintiff was bound
A.S.No.199 of 1997
7
to give notice under Clause 24 of the Regulations. Sub Clause
(d) of Clause 42 of the Regulations reads as follows:-
“If the consumer exceeds the contracted load
without prior permission of the Board or energy
supplied for a specific purpose under a particular
tariff is used without the Board’s knowledge and
approval for a different purpose not contemplated
in the contract for supply and for which higher
tariff is applicable coming under misuse of energy
within the meaning of the I.E.Act 1910. Misuse of
energy will be billed at three times the rate
applicable to the respective tariff for the previous
six months from the date of detection of misuse
unless there are convincing reasons for adopting
different periods and supply disconnected without
notice. The imposition of this higher rate will not
relieve the consumer from any penalties imposed
by law.”
8. This was a case in which the above clause was
squarely attracted since the plaintiff, who is the consumer,
had exceeded the contracted load without obtaining
permission of the Board under Clause 24. He thereby
A.S.No.199 of 1997
8
became liable to be billed at three times the rate applicable to
the respective tariff for the previous six months from the date
of detection. Merely because the factum of installation of the
pump-set came to the notice of the Board from the plaintiff
himself, the same does not absolve the plaintiff from his
liability to pay the penalty as provided under Clause 42(d) of
the Regulations. The argument advanced on the side of the
plaintiff that as long as he uses the pump-set only for
domestic purposes and consumes electricity within Slab III
(upto 30 units per month) which was allotted to him cannot
be sustained. The slab III in which the plaintiff was put all
these years was changed to Slab VIII (upto 100 units per
month) in the year 1994 consequent on noting the increased
consumption of power beyond Slab III after the unauthorised
installation of the motor and pump set.
9. The judgment and decree passed by the court below
overlooking the above vital aspects of the matter, are set
aside and the suit will stand dismissed. It is, however, made
clear that since under Ext.A6 invoice the defendants have
A.S.No.199 of 1997
9
billed the plaintiff for a period of 2 years as against the
maximum period of six months permissible under Clause 42
(d) above, the said bill cannot be enforced without rectifying
the mistake thereunder. Hence, the defendants will be
entitled to enforce payment against the plaintiff only after
issuing a revised bill in terms of Clause 42(d) of the
Regulations calculating the dues for a period of six months
only. It goes without saying that the defendants will be
entitled to charge interest on the amounts in the revised bill
to be issued hereinafter at the rates specified under sub-
clause (e) of Clause 32 of the Regulations, but only from the
date of the revised bill till realisation.
In the result this appeal is allowed to the limited extent
as indicated above. No costs.
Dated this the 10thday of June, 2009.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj