BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of January 2012
Filed on : 04-06-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.284/2011
Between
Antony, : Complainant
S/o. Abraham, Pallathussery, (Adv. Tom Joseph,
Chettikadu , Moothakunnam, Court road, Muvattupuzha)
P.O., Paravur, Ernakulam.
Vs
1. Assistant Engineer, KSEB, : Opposite parties
Moothakunnam, N. Paravur, (1st O.P by Adv. P.B. Ashokan,
2. Executive Engineer, KSEB, P.B. Ashokan & George C
Vadakkekkara Division, Varghese. XLll/4664, Banerji
N. Paravur. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-31)
3. Secretary, KSEB,
Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is the owner in possession of 30.5 cents of land. The electricity connection stands in the name of his father Mr. Abraham. The complainant is holding another electric connection availed for agricultural purposes. On 14-10-2010 the officials of the opposite parties prepared a mahazar alleging misuse of electricity from the agricultural connection and obtained a signature of the complainant in the mahazar. Subsequently the connection was disconnected. Thereafter the complainant was called upon to pay Rs. 1,02,002/- towards penal charges. The complainant filed objection against the penal bill and the same has been revised to Rs. 86.721/-. Against which he preferred an appeal by depositing half of the amount before the Deputy Chief Engineer. No decision has been taken by the Deputy Chief Engineer. Complainant is not liable to pay any amount as per the disputed bill since. Thus the complainant is before us seeking the following reliefs.
i. to get the impugned bill set aside.
ii. to direct the opposite parties not to disconnect his domestic electricity connection.
iii. to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the opposite parties.
Consumer No. 6780 is an agricultural connection owned by the father of the complainant. An inspection was conducted by the Assistant Engineer on 14-10-2010 at the premises of the complainant and prepared a mahazar noting the high consumption in the agricultural connection during rainy season. The complainant was unauthorizedly looping from agricultural connection to the domestic premises. As per Section 135 of Supply of Electricity Act misuse of electricity is treated as theft of electricity and provisional bill amounting Rs. 1,02,002/- was issued. Considering the Appeal filed by the complainant the Assistant Engineer reduced the bill to Rs. 86,721/-. The Deputy Chief Engineer disposed of the Appeal filed by the complainant confirming the order of the Assistant Engineer. The complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the bill in question.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. The 1st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get set aside the
impugned bill ?.
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get costs of the
proceedings from the opposite parties?
iii. Whether the opposite parties are legally entitled to disconnect the domestic connection of the complainant.?
5. Point No. i. Admittedly the complainant is in a possession of 30 cents of land evidenced by Ext. A1 certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer. As per Ext.B3 order the complainant is entitled to get an electric connection for agricultural purposes. Ext. B2 mahazar dated 14-08-2010 prepared by the 1st opposite party who was examined as DW1 goes to show that the complainant had misused the electricity for the purpose other than agricultural purposes. The complainant himself endorsed on Ext. B2 stating that he had read the mahazar and agreed to the contents of the same. Nothing is on record to controvert the findings of DW1 in Ext. B2 mahazar. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar iv (2010) CPJ (SC)1 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 ”.
Nothing can be proved that there is a difference in the ambiance of the matter between these two cases wherein only the higher wisdom can prevail.
6. Now the question is whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A2 to the tune of Rs. 86,721/- . The opposite parties vehemently contended that the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A2 since the misuse of electricity amounts to theft of electricity. The opposite parties maintain that they have arrived at the amounts on the basis of Ext. B6 guidelines for computing consumption based on connected load and other factors. On the contrary the learned counsel for the complainant contended that even if the electricity is misused the complainant is only liable to pay the charges as per section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003.
7. Admittedly the opposite parties issued the impugned bill on the basis of Section 135 of the Electricity Act. However we are of the view that the provision applicable in assessing the unauthorized use of electricity is under Section 126 Sub Clause 5 of the Electricity Act has to be upheld as against the claim of the opposite parties under Section 135 of the Act legitimately. In the above circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is only liable to pay the amount as per Section 126 (5) of the Act as found above.
8. Point No. ii. The 1st opposite party bonafide prepared Ext. B2 mahazar and issued penal bill to the complainant. In fact we cannot find any illegally on the part of the 1st opposite party in that action except on the calculation made by the 1st opposite party in Ext. A2 bill on different footing instead of asserting on Sec. 126 relying on Sec. 135 which has been considered as above. The above conduct of the 1st opposite party cannot be termed as deficiency in service on her part especially when provenly she has taken all essential efforts to substantiate her findings in which she has been found right.
9. Point No. iii. During the proceedings at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 312/2011 dated 14/06/2011 this Forum directed the 1st opposite party to restrain from disconnecting the electricity supply to the complainant till disposal of the complaint. The above order is made absolute on fulfilling the forthcoming directions.
10. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. We set aside Ext. A2 bill
ii. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally issue a penal
bill retrospectively for one year from the date of Ext. B2
Mahazar under Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act 2003.
iii. The opposite parties shall adjust the remittances if any made
by the complainant in the future bills.
iv. The order in I.A. No. 312/2011 dated 14-06-2011 is made absolute only if the above structures are complied with.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of January 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits:
Ext. A1 : Copy of final bill conducted
on 14-10-2010
A2 : Copy of receipt
Opposite party’s exhibits:
Ext. B1 : Copy of meter reading details
B2 : Site mahasar
B3 : Copy of order dt. 06-11-2006
B4 : Copy of letter dt. 14/10/2010
B5 : Copy of proceedings of KSEB
B6 : Copy of Guidelines for computing
Consumption based on
Connected Load and other
factors.
B7 : Copy of statement
Depositions:
PW1 : P.A. Antony
DW1 : Nisha K.K.
