By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: <br /> <br /> The petitioner’s case is that, she is a consumer of the respondents vide No.3672. The tariff to that connection is I a. A penal bill of Rs.2724/- was issued to the complainant dated 17.1.05. Without any basis the bill is issued. On enquiry it was informed that there was unauthorized use of electricity on 20.1.05. On 20.1.05 she made an application to the Board. But no remedy. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The version of respondents is that the electric connection to the consumer No.3672 is a domestic connection and on 14.1.05 the Section Squad inspected the premises and it was found that the domestic connection is using for constructing a newly building, violating the service connection agreement. Hence a site mahazar is prepared and a penal bill for Rs.2724/- is issued as per Clause 42(D) of Conditions of Supply. Hence dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are:<br /> (1) Is there any deficiency in service?<br /> (2) Is the impugned bill is liable to cancel?<br /> (3) Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 series (13 in Nos.) and Exts. R1 to R4.<br /> <br /> 5. Points-1 to 3: The penal bill has issued on the basis of Ext. R1 mahazar as alleged by the respondents. Ext. R1 cannot be considered as a mahazar envisaged by Criminal Procedure Code. It can only taken as a document stating inspection of premises. From which it can be seen that the domestic connection was issued to non-domestic purposes. There is no enmity alleged against the complainant by the Board officials. As per Ext. R4 the explanation-dated 23.1.05 the Board showed a leniency to the complainant. We are in the view that there was misuse of electricity and the penal bill was issued. Ext. P1 series are the usual bills, which show that the complainant was a prompt consumer and no arrears. Only because of the misuse, the penal bill has issued. In the impugned bill the details of the amount are stated. There is nothing to disbelieve Ext. R1 document. The complainant is found to pay the bill and this point is found against the respondent.<br /> <br /> 6. By alleging mahazar a document is prepared by the Board. There is no address of the second witness, first one refused to sign also. This is not a mahazar. The Board is not performing their duties properly. A document is prepared and called it a mahazar. It is not a mahazar as such. There is latches on the part of Board. In that aspect there is deficiency in service on the part of the Board. Hence the Board is not entitled for the interest. <br /> <br /> 7. In the result, complaint is dismissed and the complainant is directed to pay the bill amount by three equal consecutive instalments. The first instalment shall pay on 15.9.2008. The respondents are directed not to disconnect the electric supply until the payment. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 11th day of August 2008.<br />