KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.584/06
JUDGMENT DATED 8.9.2010
PRESENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The Secretary,
KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Ex.Engineer, -- APPELLANTS
KSEB, Thiruvalla.
3. The Asst.Engineer,
KSEB,Mallappally.
(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs.
Alias Cherian,
Chethicad Industries, -- RESPONDENT
Kunnamthanam, Mallappall,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv.Ajaykumar B)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.118/03 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing an additional bill for Rs.10,482/- based on inspection of the meter installed at the premises of the complaint. The complainant prayed for getting the impugned bill cancelled. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer was found defective, that based on the inspection B1 mahazer was prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad. It was contended that one phase of the energy meter was not recording the consumption because of loose contact at that terminal. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing the additional bill.
2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and A1 to A7 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite parties, the Asst. Executive Engineer of KSEB was examined as DW1. B1 copy of the mahazer and B2 copy of the meter reading register were marked on the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 21st June 2006 allowing the complaint in OP.118/03. Thereby, the impugned bill was cancelled and the opposite parties were directed to refund the bill amount of Rs.10,482/- which was collected by the opposite parties/KSEB from the complaint. It was also directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount with compensation of Rs.1,500/- and costs of Rs.1000/-. Hence the present appeal.
3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties much relied on B1 mahazer and the testimony of PW1. He argued for the position that the energy meter installed at the premises of the respondent/complainant (consumer) was not recording at one phase of the 3 phase meter and the additional bill was issued for the aforesaid short assessment of the energy consumption. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum bellow. He argued for the position that B1 mahazer has not been proved properly and there is nothing on record to show that there occurred short assessment of consumption of energy. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
4. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer of electrical energy under KSEB and that the complainant was consuming energy for his small scale industrial unit under the tariff LT IV. Admittedly, there was inspection of the energy meter by the Anti Power Theft Squad. The aforesaid inspection was conducted on 4.12.02. The inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad is admitted by the respondent/complainant. Evidencing the aforesaid inspection and the defect noticed in the said inspection, a mahazer was prepared by the Sub Engineer of the Electrical Section, Mallappally. Ext.B1 is copy of the said mahazer. The complainant has also produced copy of the said mahazer as Ext.A2. A perusal of the site mahazer would make it clear that one phase of the 3 phase energy meter was not recording the consumption of energy. The fact that such a mahazer was prepared based on the inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad has been deposed by DW1, the Asst. Executive Engineer of KSEB. There is no reason or ground to doubt the testimony of DW1. There is also nothing on record to disbelieve or discard B1 site mahazer prepared by the Sub Engineer. The Forum below cannot be justified in not relying B1 mahazer on the sole ground that the said mahazer was not proved. But, the Forum below omitted to consider the aspect that the complainant himself has admitted inspection of the energy meter by the Anti Power Theft Squad. The fact that one of the phases of the energy meter was not recording consumption of energy can be seen from A3 complaint submitted by the complainant to the second opposite party, Executive Engineer. It is also to be noted that the officials of KSEB again inspected the energy meter and it was convinced that one phase of the energy meter was not recording consumption of energy. It is further to be noted that the complainant/consumer has also remitted the additional bill amount of Rs.10,482/-. The Forum below cannot be justified in discarding B1 mahazer and also the case of the opposite party/KSEB. So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is liable to be quashed. The complaint in OP.118/03 deserves dismissal. Hence we do so.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.6.06 passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.118/03 is set aside. The complaint in OP.118/03 is dismissed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
s/L
