KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 138/2007

JUDGEMENT DATED : 31-10-2009

PRESENT:

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN             :  MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR                    : MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.            Assistant Executive Engineer,

          Electrical Sub Division,

          Sakthikulangara, Kollam.

2.          Secretary, K.S.E.B. Vydhudhi Bhavan,

          Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

            (Rep. by Adv. Sri. S. Balachandran)

                                    Vs

RESPONDENT

Andrew, S/o Peter,

Karmali Bhavanam, Kannimel Cherry,

Maruthady, Kollam.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Dinesh Sajan. K)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

By the order dated 29-12-2006 in OP No. 163/2005, the CDRF, Kollam quashed the bill for Rs. 1,570/- issued by the opposite parties with a further direction to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs.   It is aggrieved by the said directions that this appeal has been preferred by the opposite parties. 

          2.          The complainant had approached the Forum alleging that the bill for Rs. 1,570/- issued by the first opposite party was unsustainable and hence he had prayed for the cancellation of the bill along with compensation and costs.  It was the further case of the complainant that he was never a defaulter in paying the electricity charges and that on changing the meter which was in the premises of the complainant, the opposite parties issued the impugned bill stating that the said amount was towards the value of the meter that was damaged and that the MRT seal was also found broken.  The complainant says that he was not aware of any damage if any to the meter and that he had not done anything in the meter to cause damage and that the bill issued was improper, illegal and unsustainable.  Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed.

          3.          The opposite parties contended that on 28-10-2004 the meter reader concerned had reported that the MRT seal of the meter of the complainant was found broken and the bill was issued demanding the cost of the meter.  The opposite parties submitted that the bill issued was liable to be paid by the complainant and that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

          4.          The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and documents P1 and P2.  The first opposite party was examined as DW1 and documents D1 to D3 were marked.

          5.          Heard both sides.

          6.          The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is perse illegal and unsustainable.  It is his case that the bill was issued consequent to the detection that the MRT seal of the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was in a broken condition and as it is the duty of the complainant to keep the meter safely, the opposite parties issued a bill towards the value of the tampered meter.  It is his further case that the complainant had been informed of this fact by Ext.D3.  The learned Counsel gave much reliance to D3 where it is stated that the bill was issued towards installation of a new meter in the place of the old meter which was damaged by the complainant.  Contending that there was no deficiency of service the learned Counsel argued for the dismissal of the complaint in toto.

          7.          The learned Counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  He has argued that there was no evidence to support the case of the opposite parties that the meter was destroyed or damaged by the complainant.  The learned Counsel further argued that even Ext.D3 does not contain any details about the damage or other details of the meter.  He has also invited our attention to the important fact that there was no site mahazar or any other supporting document to establish the case of the opposite parties.  It is also his case that the opposite parties have no case that the meter was not in a working condition or that the complainant has made any theft of electrical energy.  Thus arguing for the position that the order of the Forum below is well considered, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with costs.

          8.          On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants and respondent and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that a bill dated 28-04-205 for Rs. 1570/- was issued by the first opposite party to the complaint.  It is also observed that the bill is issued towards the value of the meter.  The opposite parties contended that the MRT seal of the meter was damaged and hence a new meter had to be installed in the premises.  The further case is that the complainant has destroyed/damaged the MRT seal and hence he is liable to pay the impugned bill.  On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstance of the case, we do not find any cogent grounds to support the case of the appellants/opposite parties.  It is seen that though the meter is changed there is no site mahazar or any other supporting document to show that the meter was damaged due to the reason that the old meter was damaged by the complainant or that the MRT seal was broken which would enable the complainant to commit mal practice/theft of electrical energy.  We also find that though Ext.D3 is issued, it does not contain any information regarding the fault of the old meter or any other reasons to show that the complainant is liable to pay the said amount.  The only inscription in the notice is (MRT seal broken).  We do not think that the opposite parties can realize money from the complainant unless there is supporting evidence to show that the meter was tampered/damaged by the complainant.  In the absence of the said evidence we are not inclined to accept the case of the opposite parties that the complainant is liable to pay the amount demanded by them.

          9.          The Forum below has also ordered compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-.  However, we feel that the complainant had not suffered any loss or any hardships due to the issue of the bill.  In the absence of proof or evidence to show that the complainant has suffered any loss, award of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- is set aside.  The cost of Rs. 500/- ordered by the Forum below is sustained.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above.  Thereby the appellants are not liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 1,000/- ordered by the Forum below.  The cost ordered by the Forum below is liable to be paid by the opposite parties.  Though the Forum has directed to recover the amount from the erring employees of the opposite parties, we do not feel that such a direction is necessary.  Having found that the MRT seal of the meter was broken, it is the bounden duty of the employees to report the matter to the higher officials.  In the instant case the only defect that came to our notice is the failure to establish the fact that the damage was caused by the complainant.  In such a situation the direction to recover the amount from the erring official is set aside.

In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                                                                                                                                                                   S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR :  MEMBER

                             VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          :  MEMBER

Sr.