A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a domestic category consumer of the opposite party. The electricity consumption was bare minimum. On 15-01-2008, 5 persons (including 2 policemen) introduced as the team of Anti Power theft squad of the opposite party disconnected the electricity connection and took away the electricity meter stating that the complainant had tampered with the electricity meter and there is theft of electrical energy. Under threat of arrest and detention which the squad made the complainant to write a statement that by mistake the complainant had done the tampering of the meter. The complainant was forced to pay an amount of Rs. 68,041/- on 16-01-2008. In fact 04-01-2005 onwards the meter of the complainant was found to be faulty and is continued to be faulty till 04-01-2008. So the complainant had no occasion or need to tampering with the meter in January 2008. The acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 68,041/-paid on 16-01-2008 together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. The complaint hence .
2. Version of the opposite party.
The Anti Power Theft squad of the KSEBoard found theft of electicl energy and prepared a mahazar dated 15-01-2008 consequently they caused an invoice to the tune of Rs. 68,041/-. From the next reading taken after the detection of theft the reading is 251 units (502 units bimonthly). The Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the meter in the presence of the consumer. As seen from the mahazar, which was accepted by the consumer goes to show that the meter has been tampered with. On inspection of the meter the squad found that the sealing wires of the lead seals on the meter which are provided to prevent the opening of the cover of the meter were tampered with. More over the counter mechanism was tampered with in order to reduce the reading. The complainant has given a request to pardon him since it was his first instance of theft. Thus the invoice for Rs. 68,041/- was issued to the complainant based on the report of the squad. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A13 were marked on his side. Witnesses for the opposite party were examined as DWs 1 and 2. Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite party. The opposite party filed argument note. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the authorized representative of the opposite party.
4. The points that enunciated for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount as per the impugned bill?
ii. Compensation and costs
5. Points Nos. i&ii. Ext. B1 mahazar goes to show that the same was prepared by the APT squad in the presence of the complainant and he has acknowledged that Ext. B1 was prepared in his presence and the contents are found correct. The complainant contented that he has signed in the mahazar under threat of arrest and detention But on the very next day admittedly he lodged Ext. B3 application before the opposite party reprobating his earlier contention. It is bad at law to approbate and reprobate at the same time which the complainant seems to do in this case. We are indeed not at all at a loss contend to a contention that, the mahazar prepared on 15-01-2008. But Ext. B3 letter was submitted only on 16-01-2008 that is the next day which goes to prove that it was not signed under coercion as alleged. Ext. B3 letter reads as follows:
“On inspection in my home by officials of KSEB tampering meter was seen. Since it is a first time offence, I request to condone my offence. I also request for permit me to compound my offence as contemplated in the act. I promise to pay all the penalties imposed by KSEB”
During cross examination the complainant maintained that he had submitted Ext. B3 under imminent threat of arrest. Apart from the averment in the complaint that he was compelled to sign in Ext. B1 mahazar and Ext. B2 letter nothing is on record to substantiate the above contentions especially incontrovertibly stated above. On the contrary DW2 the witness who prepared Ext. B1 mahazar mounted the box and was cross-examined at length. Nothing incriminating the Board is brought out from him. Moreover it was the burden of the complainant to controvert the evidence adduced by the opposite party which he failed to having accepted the blame in the first place. The Hon’ble Appex Court in Punjab Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar iv (2010) CPJ (SC)1 has held that “the inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of its official duties by the officers of the Corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of such act or document and not against the same. Thus, there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct. As already noticed, no objections were filed to the said report except some protest, that too, without stating as to what was the specific pretest about, whether the facts recorded in the report were factually incorrect or that the report was received under protest. As is apparent from the reports on record, it bears to signatures of the consumer/consumer’s representatives, one with regard to the preparation of report and other with regard to receiving the copy of the report. The words ‘under protest’ have been recorded at the bottom of the report. This, itself indicates the ambiquity in the protest raised by the consumers ”.
6. In the instant case as well the complainant failed to adduce evidence to overcome or set aside the findings of the KSEB officials in Ext. B1. In the absence of any cogent and proper evidence we are only to hold that the officials of KSEB acted in accordance with the Electricity Act 2003 and there is no reason to interfere into the findings of KSEBoard especially in view of the decision of Hon’ble Appex Court. Thus the complainant is not entitled to get refund the amounts as per the settled bill.
7. Before parting we record our appreciation for the authorized representative Ms. Sunitha Jose who presented the case in an effective and applaudable manner. She had taken her earnest efforts to substantiate the contentions of the Board in this Forum which is much appreciated, the bearing needs continue.
8. For the foregoing reasons stated we are only to dismiss the complaint. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th day of February 2011.
