Kerala

Kottayam

08/263

Haneefa.m.n - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assis.Engeer,kseb - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jul 2010

ORDER


KottayamConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Civil Station, Kottayam
CONSUMER CASE NO. of
1. Haneefa.m.nSecretory, Alapra Muslim Jamath ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 23 Jul 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

O R D E R
 
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
 
Case of the petitioner filed on 20..10..2008 is as follows:
            Petitioner is the secretary of Alapra Mulsim Jamath. The petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party with vide consumer No. 4085. The connection was availed for Madrassa. Petitioner had applied for a consumer connection to the quarters for the residence of the teachers of the Madrassa on 7..2..2007. The quarters building have got access to the public road by 3’ width pathway. Since a neighbour has objected to draw electric line to the pathway the opposite party has not supplied electric connection to the petitioner. Matter is pending before the Collector. On 16..5..2008 a new Imam had taken charge of  Madrassa and started to reside in the quarter by 30..5..2008. According to the petitioner wife of the Imam was pregnant and after getting oral consent    from the 1st opposite party two lights were used in the quarter  premises by plugging current from the Madrassa building. According to the petitioner at the instigation of the person who has
-2-
objected drawing of the electric line,  through path way,   officers of the opposite party inspected  the  premises on 21..7..2008 and issued a penal bill of Rs. 36,000/- to the petitioner.  Petitioner filed objection to the assessment but the opposite party confirmed the penal bill amount of Rs. 36,000/-. According to the petitioner said bill is without any legal basis and is a clear deficiency in service. So the petitioner prays for set asiding the bill Dtd: 30..7..2008 for Rs. 36,000/- and the prays for  a direction to the opposite party to give  connection to the quarters. Petition claims cost and compensation.
            Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Bill issued by the first opposite party is as per  section 126(2) of Electricity Act 2003 for the mis use of electrical energy detected in the premises of the petitioner on 21..7..2008. Inspection made by the first opposite party noticed  an unauthorised extension of the electricity   from the consumer No. 4085 to residential building owned by the petitioner. For effecting new connection to the petitioners building, it is required to draw 40 mtrs. of  overhead electrical line along the boundary of the property of Smt. Rukhiya Beevi. So, the work has held up and opposite party moved petition before the District Magistrate Kottayam for removing the objection as per Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. The non compromising attitude of the petitioner itself   caused delay in clearing the objection.  A criminal case is pending before the S I of police, Manimala. According to the opposite party   bill issued is as per section126 of Electricity Act and is legal. The non availing of the electric connection to the petitioner is due to the pendency of the dispute before the ADM, Kottayam   So, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
-3-
Points for determinations are:
i)                    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii)                   Relief and costs?
            Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and deposition of PW1 and PW2 and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 document on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
            Petitioner produced disputed bill dtd 30..7..2008 copy of the said bill is marked as Ext. A3. Petitioner also produced a copy of  letter dtd: 20..9..2008  and the same is marked as Ext. A2. From Ext. A2 it can be seen that provisional  bill is finalized by the opposite party,  Ext. A3 assessment is made by penalizing  the petitioner  for the last 12 months. (back assessment for one year) Admittedly there is un authorized use of electricity . Question to be decided whether the petition is liable to be penalized for 12 months. The petitioner was examined before the Forum  as PW1. PW1 in Chief Examination deposed that he took charge as the Imam on 16..5..2008 and he started to reside in the quarter from  30..5..2008. Since his wife was pregnant 2 lights were used in the quarter by plugging the current from  the Madrassa building. Due to the unavoidable condition of his wife electricity was taken from the Madrassa. Opposite party has not cross examined   the petitioner  with regard to his averment about the date of unauthorized use ( 30..5..2008). In our view back assessing the petitioner for one year is not warranted. As per section 126(5) if the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion
 
-4-
that un authorized use of electricity was taken place it shall be presumed that such un authorized use of electricity must be continuing   for a period of one year unless the onus is rebutted by person, occupier or possessor of such premises. In this case   PW1 stated that he plugged the electric current  from the Madrasa building from 30..5..2008. Said  fact was not disputed by the opposite party by cross examining PW1 to that point. Further more in Ext. B1 Mahazar also opposite party admitted petitioners case of prior application for getting electric connection. So, from the probabilities it can be persumed that unauthorized use was from 30..5..2008.  So, in our view issuance of Ext. A3 bill by the back assessing the petitioner for one year is not legal and proper. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
            In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is allowed in part. In the result bill Dtd: 30..7..2008 for an amount of Rs. 36,000/- is cancelled. Opposite party is ordered to issue a revised bill to the petitioner penalizing the petitioner as if the petitioner had unauthorizedly used electricity,  from 30..5..2008. Admittedly the petitioner deposited ½ of the assessed amount (Rs. 18,000) to the opposite party. If the opposite party after issuing revised bill find that the amount collected is excess they can adjust the excess amount in future bill or refund the same to the petitioner.   Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order . Since the dispute with regard to availing connection to the quarters is pending before the Hon’ble District Megistrate, Kottayam we will not adjudicate  the prayer of the petitioner regarding the same. Considering the
 
-5-
 facts and circumstances the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2010.
 
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-      
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-               
Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member                     Sd/-    
APPENDIX
Document for the petitioner
 
Ext. A1:            Copy of receipt dtd: 7..2..2007
Ext. A2:            Copy of letter dtd: 20..9..2006 issued to the petitioner by the opposite party.
Ext. A3:            Copy of provisional bill Dtd: 8..8..2008
Ext. A4:            Copy of letter Dtd: 31..7..2008.
Documents for the Opposite party
Ext. B1:            Copy of Mahazar
Ext. B2:            Copy of deposition of Rukhia Beevi before District Magistrate.
Ext. B3:            Final order under Section 126.
Witness
PW1    :           Shahul Hameed
PW2:               Muhammed Basheer.
           
 

HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, MemberHONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENTHONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member