KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 126/2010
ORDER DATED:26-03-2011
PRESENT:
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section, kseb,
Kundara.
2. Asst. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Sub Division, : APPELLANTS
Kundara.
3. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Sub Division,
Kundara.
(By Adv: Sri.S.Balachandran)
Vs.
A. Shamshudeen,
A.S. Manizil, Mamoodu,
Chandanathoppu.P.O, Kollam. : RESPONDENT
(By Adv:Sri.K.Abdul Shahan)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.266/06 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in disconnecting the electricity supply to the agriculture connection given to the premises of the complainant. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.1.lakh for mental agony and the damage caused to the agriculture in one acre of property which was watering with the agricultural connection given to the premises of the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the electricity supply was disconnected for non remittance of the bill amount of Rs.21,316/-. They further contended that the complainant misused the electrical energy supplied for agricultural purpose by using the same for domestic purpose and construction purpose and thereby the opposite parties justified their action in issuing the bill for Rs.21,316/-. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1, Exts.P1 to P3 documents were marked on his side. On the side of the opposite parties DW1, the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kundara was examined and D1 site mahasor prepared by the Sub Engineer K.Lukose, Kundara Electrical section was marked. The commission report filed by the expert commissioner was marked as Ext.C1. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:29th September 2009 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.7500/- with cost of Rs.1500/-. Hence the present appeal.
3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on Ext.D1 site mahasor and argued for the position that the respondent/complainant misused the electrical energy supplied for agricultural purpose. He justified the action of the opposite parties in disconnecting the supply of electricity to the premises of the complainant and the issuance of the electricity bill for Rs.21,316/-. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and argued for dismissal of the present appeal. He also filed arguments notes in support of his oral submissions.
4. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant was a consumer of electricity with Consumer No.7200. The aforesaid electricity connection was given for agriculture purpose with tariff LT V. The case of the appellants/opposite parties is that the respondent/complainant misused the electrical energy supplied for agricultural purpose by using the same for domestic purpose and construction purpose. The appellants relied on Ext.D1 site mahasor in support of their case regarding misuse of energy. But D1 site mahasor has not been proved by the appellants/opposite aprties. The D1 site mahasor was prepared by K.Lukose, sub Engineer, Kundara; but the person who prepared D1 site mahasor has not been examined in this case. The only witness examined on the side of the opposite parties is DW1. A perusal of the testimony of DW1 would make it clear that he had no direct knowledge about the alleged misuse of energy by the complainant/consumer. He was not present at the time of the inspection in which the misuse of energy was detected. He was also not present at the time of preparation of D1 site mahasor. DW1 has categorically deposed that he has no direct knowledge about the inspection or about the preparation of D1 site mahasor. So, the only person competent to depose about the alleged detection of misuse of energy is K.Lukose, Sub Engineer, Kundara who prepared D1 site mahasor. But, the opposite parties failed to examine the aforesaid Sub Engineer. D1 site mahasor would also show that two witnesses were there for the D1 site mahasor. But those witnesses have not been examined in this case. The first witness is none other than the complainant/consumer. But the complainant has not affixed his signature to D1 site mahasor. It is further to be noted that the complainant as PW1 has denied the alleged misuse of energy. Another witness cited in D1 mahasor is T.Shaheer, Lineman, Electrical section, Kundara. But, the aforesaid witness, Shaheer has not been examined before the Forum below. Not even an affidavit has been filed by the Sub Engineer or the Lineman about the preparation of the site mahasor regarding detection of misuse of energy. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that there was misuse of energy by the complainant/consumer.
5. The appellants/opposite parties have got a case that the audit wing of KSEB, Kottarakkara conducted periodical inspection and they detected abnormal consumption of energy by the complainant. It was also contended that the aforesaid audit wing inspected the premises of the complainant/consumer and detected misuse of energy for domestic and construction purposes. But there is nothing on record to show that the audit wing of KSEB, Kottarakkara detected the abnormal consumption energy. There is also nothing on record to show that the aforesaid audit wing inspected the premises and detected misuse of energy. No member of the said audit wing has been examined in this case. So, the appellants/opposite parties have also miserably failed in establishing their case that the audit wing of KSEB detected misuse of energy. Thus, there is no reliable evidence to substantiate the case of the appellants/opposite parties that the respondent/complainant (consumer) misused the energy supplied for agricultural purpose. No other document is forthcoming from the side of opposite parties other than D1 site mahasor. The oral testimony of DW1 would not support the case of the appellants/opposite parties regarding misuse of energy. If that be so, the case of the appellants/opposite parties regarding misuse of energy by the complainant/consumer cannot be believed or accepted. In such a situation the issuance of penal bill based on the alleged misuse of energy cannot be justified.
6. The case of the appellants/opposite parties is that the respondent/complainant (consumer) failed to remit the bill amount of Rs.21,316/- and because of non remittance of the said bill amount the electricity connection was disconnected. It is to be noted that the bill dated:15/12/2005 for Rs.21,316/- was issued as penal bill based on the alleged misuse of energy. It has been held that the appellants/opposite parties have failed to substantiate their case regarding misuse of energy. If that be so, the issuance of bill dated:15/12/2005 for Rs.21.316/- can also be held as legally sustainable. So, the disconnection of supply of electricity for non remittance of the said sum of Rs.21,316/- is also legally sustainable. Thus, the Forum below has rightly directed the appellants/opposite parties to restore the agricultural connection to the premises of the complainant.
7. The facts, circumstances and the evidence on record would show that the spot biller viz. Subramonian changed the tariff from LT V to LT VII A. It is to be noted that the spot biller has no authority to change the tariff. So, the change of tariff by the spot biller can be considered as unwarranted action. It is to be noted that no notice was given to the complainant/consumer before changing the tariff from LT V to LT VII A. It is further to be noted that the tariff was changed based on the alleged misuse of energy. It has been held that the appellants/opposite parties have failed to substantiate their case regarding misuse of energy. So, the Forum below is also justified in directing the opposite parties to restore the tariff under LT V. Admittedly the appellants/opposite parties had also rechanged the tariff from LT VII A to the original tariff LT V.
8. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.1.lakh for the mental agony and the damages sustained by him. The Forum below deputed an Advocate Commissioner to assess the damages caused to the agriculture maintained by the complainant. Ext.C1 is the commission report filed by the commissioner. The Forum below considered the damage caused to the agriculture maintained by the complainant and also mental agony suffered by the complainant. The Forum below fixed the compensation at Rs.7500/-. The materials available on record would show that the compensation fixed by the Forum below can be treated as fair and reasonable. So, the compensation of Rs.7500/- directed to be paid by the opposite parties can be upheld. The Forum below is also justified in awarding cost of Rs.1500/- to the complainant. In all respects; the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be upheld. Hence we do so.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 29/9/2009 passed by CDRF, Kollam in CC.266/06 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER
VL.
