IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday, the 30th day of July, 2009
Filed on 27.02.2008
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No.37/2008
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.P.Salim 1. The Asst. Engineer
Dhanwanthari Madam Section Office, Electrical Section
Thazhupp, Parayakadu P.O. Kuthiathodu
Kuthiathodu Village
Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha Dt. 2. The Asst. Executive Engineer (By Adv. E.D. Zacharias) KSEB Office, Electrical Sub Division
Pattanakkad
3. The KSEB., Represented by its Secretary, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case is in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties bearing No.935. The complainant has never gone beyond the sanctioned electric load. The complainant has never misused the said electric connection. Yet, the opposite parties on 7th March 2007 issued a demand notice to the complainant for an amount of Rs.1350/- (Rupees one thousand three hundred and fifty only) towards alleged unauthorized load fixed charge (UALFC). The complainant, on being scared of disconnection and disgrace thereof paid off the said amount. Thereafter, surprisingly enough, the opposite parties on 11th February 2008, issued another demand notice for an amount of Rs.26,553/- (Rupees twenty six thousand five hundred and fifty three only) alleging unauthorized extension of service connection. The complainant has never unauthorizedly drawn any energy from the aforesaid connection. The opposite parties never conducted any inspection in the complainant premise. The opposite parties are not entitled to any amount as demanded in the notice. The opposite parties inflicted indescribable mental agony frustration and disgrace to the complainant. Got aggrieve on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The opposite parties contend that the complainant is not a consumer, and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant complainant. The complainant is having another connection from the opposite parties bearing No.5188. According to the opposite parties, the said connection is being used for drawing electrical energy in the peeling shed. The said connection is used for profiteering purpose. The prior notice dated 7th March 2007 was issued for unauthorized load fixed charge (UALFC). The opposite party conducted inspection in the complainant premise on 27th February 2007, and a Mahazar to that effect was prepared. Thus it was detected that the complainant was misusing the low tariff energy from the domestic connection bearing consumer No.935 for commercial purpose, the opposite parties allege. Barring bare miscalculation, the amount arrived on in the demand notice is legal and genuine. The bill was calculated on the basis of the inspection of the squad. The consumer is liable to pay the said amount. The consumer has committed criminal offence, assert the opposite parties. The opposite parties are not intending to harass the complainant. There is no negligence on the part of the complainant. The opposite party committed no deficiency of service. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties aver.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl and the documents Exts. Al to A8 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, RWl and Rw2 were examined, and the documents Exts. Bl and B2 were marked.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the issues that arise before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant effected unauthorized extension of domestic connection for commercial purpose?
(3) Cost and compensation?
5. Concededly, the bills in question have been issued in the consumer No.935. It is not denied or disputed that the said connection bearing consumer No.935 is domestic. In this context, needless to say the complainant is a consumer for the purpose of the instant complaint. It apparently appears that the contentions of the parties revolve round the demand notice dated 11th February 2008. According to the opposite parties, an inspection was conducted on the complainant premise on 27th February 2007. Resultantly, the opposite parties detected complainant's stealing of electrical energy through an underground cable from his residence to the complainant's peeling shed. In other words, the complainant was unauthorizedly pilfering energy of low tariff for profiteering purpose of the peeling shed. Thus, the opposite parties prepared a Mahazar to that effect. Seemingly, the demand notice in question has been issued on the basis of the said inspection. Bearing in mind the said aspect, we carefully looked into the forceful contention of the complainant that the opposite parties haven't conducted any inspection as claimed by them. The counsel for the complainant led us through Regulation 52 clause 5 sub clause 9 KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, and vehemently argues that, as per the relevant provisions, the drawing up of a Mahazar involves certain mandatory stipulations. Accordingly, in the event of prejudicial use being detected, the Mahazar shall be drawn up in the presence of the consumer or his representative along with two other witnesses who shall sign the Mahazar Report. One of the copies of the Mahasar so drawn up shall be handed over under the acknowledgement of the consumer or his representative. We readily concur with the said contention of the counsel for the complainant. In this back drop, we are persuaded to go through the Ext.B1, Mahazar with a surgeon's precision. Strangely, Ext.Bl seems to have signed by no witnesses. It has also not come in evidence that the complainant has been issued a copy of the material Mahasar. It is in this background, the complainant's contention that the opposite parties have not conducted any inspection in his premise, and as such the Ext.B1 Mahazar is a manipulated document assumes significance. It is crucial to notice that the demand notice in question has been issued consequent upon the alleged inspection on 27th February 2007. When the inspection itself is not duly proved, the demand notice issued by the opposite parties cannot legally sustain. It is worthy of notice that concededly, the opposite parties haven't seized any instrument, wire etc alleged to have been used for unauthorized drawing of electricity. The said material omission of the opposite parties casts serious doubt on the veracity of the opposite parties version of inspection being conducted as claimed by them, which, on the other hand further fortifies the complainant case. In the wake of the aforesaid facts and findings, we are of the considered view that the version of the opposite party has no its own legs to stand. It goes without saying that the complainant case merit acceptance.
6. For the forgoing facts and circumstance of the case, the demand notice dated 11th February 2008 for an amount of Rs.26,553/- (Rupees twenty six thousand five hundred and fifty three only) stands quashed.
In the result, complaint stands disposed accordingly. No order as to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2009.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - P.Salim (Witness)
Ext.A1 - True copy of the bill dt. 6.2.2008
Ext.A2 - True copy of the receipt for Rs.644/-
Ext.A3 - True copy of the bill dt. 7.3.2007
Ext.A4 - True copy of the receipt for Rs.1453/-
Ext.A5 - True copy of the bill dt.11.2.2008 for Rs.26,553/-
Ext.A6 - Copy of the complaint before the Asst. Engineer,
Kuthiathode dated 25.2/2008
Ext.A7 - Copy of the complaint before the Asst. Engineer,
Kuthiathode dated 28.2.2008
Ext.A8 - True copy of the receipt for Rs.20/-
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Raju. G. (Witness)
RW2 - Ajith Kumar K. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Mahazar
Ext.B2 - True copy of the page 12 of the report
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
