Assistant executive engineer,K.S.E.B V/S Mohammed yunus .pm
Mohammed yunus .pm filed a consumer case on 18 Feb 2008 against Assistant executive engineer,K.S.E.B in the Malappuram Consumer Court. The case no is op/01/117 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MALAPPURAM consumer case(CC) No. op/01/117
Mohammed yunus .pm
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Assistant executive engineer,K.S.E.B
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI 2. K.T. SIDHIQ
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. Complainant challenges validity of electricity bill dated 6-7-2000 for Rs.3,41205/- issued by opposite party. 2. Opposite party filed version contending that on 30-6-2000 Anti Power Theft Squad conducted an inspection of the premises of the complainant. Illegal abstraction of energy by popular method of providing gap between glass and meter cover was detected. Site mahazar was prepared. On 6-7-2000 service was disconnected after giving notice. A case was registered by Malappuram Police vide Crime No.268/2000 under section 39 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (F.I.R. No.268 dated, 10-7-2000). The consumer was reassessed as per clause 43 of Conditions of Supply of Energy Regulations, at three times the rate applicable in the preceeding period of six months for an amount of Rs.3,41,205/-. Complainant requested for installment facility which was granted. Complainant remitted the first instalment of Rs.one lakh on 12-07-2000 and service was reconnected on the same day. Complainant preferred O.P.No.20197/00 before Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on 17-7-2000 and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18-7-2000 directed Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of the appeal filed by complainant on merits within one month. The appeal was dismissed on 14-02-2001 vide order of Deputy Chief Engineer Order No.BV-5773/KKD/00. As per the order the bill was upheld to be proper and opposite party was directed to realise the balance. The complainant again approached Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide O.P.No.1056/01 challenging the validity of the bill and the impugned order of Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Thiruvananthapuram. Interim order staying disconnection was passed by Hon'ble High Court in CMP.1686/01 on condition that complainant remit Rs.one lakh within one month. It is submitted that this original petition and the criminal case are both pending and the Forum cannot adjudicate the matter. The bill is issued as per provisions and there is no deficiency in service. 3. Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.P1 to P8 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 marked on behalf of opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence. 4. Points that arise for consideration are (i) Whether opposite party has committed deficiency in service. (ii) If so, reliefs and costs. 5. Ext.B1 is the photo copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court in O.P.10567/01. After repeated directions to both sides to report about the stage of the case pending before Hon'ble High Court. Opposite party finally produced Ext.B1 on 31-01-2008. As per this order dated, 16-3-2006 this Forum is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of the judgment. The interim order passed in CMP 1686/01 is to continue till such time. 6. According to complainant he is looking after the affairs of his father who avails the service of opposite party for electricity supply to consumer No.15143. Complainant prefers this complaint as a beneficiary on behalf of his father. Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the disputed bill dated, 6-7-2000 for Rs.3,41,205/-. Complainant affirms that he has not committed any illegal abstraction of energy. He admits that on 30-6-2000 Anti Power Theft Squad, Kozhikode conducted a surprise inspection and thereafter crime No.268/00 was registered. He contends that the bill is issued only on surmises and that if there is any gap in the meter it could have occurred due to climatic change or due to low quality of rubber and glass in the meter. Even though opposite party alleges that there was illegal abstraction by insertion of materials inside the meter no foreign body can be inserted through the alleged gap and further opposite party has not seized any such material from inside the meter. Counsel for complainant also submitted that the meter reading was taken by Sub Engineer every month and if there was any gap or alterations in the meter it ought to have come to the notice of the meter reader. This contention of complainant that Sub Engineer was taking the meter readings regularly is admitted in para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party. It is also admitted that bills were issued regularly on the monthly readings taken and that no regular bills were pending. Thus if an expert person like Sub Engineer was taking monthly meter readings, then any illegal abstraction of energy by method of inserting foreign body into the gap in the meter should have come to his notice. He should have made endorsement or noted the defect in the meter checking register. Further although opposite party contends that site mahazar was prepared it is not produced. Opposite party has no case that they saw any material object inserted into the meter. The only allegation is that a gap was seen in the meter. There is no evidence as to what is the foreign body/material object inserted into the meter. Opposite party has not seized any material object at the time of inspection. It is not clear from which date the gap in the meter appeared. If the gap was used to abstract energy illegally then the meter ought to have been sticky. If there is any alleged alterations the meter ought not be showing actual consumption of energy. Opposite party has not produced the meter readings prior to the inspection or subsequent to it. There is no report by opposite party as to the variations in consumption of electricity. Thus opposite party has not made any attempt to establish the facts set out in the affidavit filed in support of the case. Complainant had taken steps to have the meter tested by Electrical Inspector by filing I.A.B/2001 on 8-8-2001. Opposite party opposed this application. This petition is still pending. Due to vacancy in the post of President the matter was delayed. We thought it better consider this petition along with the main complaint. Due to the long delay and considering the above facts we do not think it necessary to have the meter tested by Electrical Inspector. Hence I.A./\B/2001 is dismissed. 6. The only inference that can be made is that the bill for Rs.3,41,205/- dated, 6-7-2000 is issued without any basis. The Hon'ble National Commission in a similar case, Haryana Bijili Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Suresh kumar 2007 CTJ 1174 (CP) NCDRC. has taken the view that the allegation of theft is of criminal nature and has to be proved with cogent and reliable evidence. Opposite party has failed to establish and prove that Ext.A1 bill is issued for the actual consumption of energy. The act of opposite party in issuing a bill without any nexus to the energy consumed amounts to deficiency in service. 7. In the result, complaint allowed. Ext.A1 bill dated, 6-7-2000 for Rs.3,41,205/- stands cancelled. Opposite party shall refund the amount of Rs.2 lakh paid by complainant towards this bill within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Dated this 18th day of February, 2008. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.P1 to P8 Ext.P1 : Photo copy of the bill for Rs.3,41,205/- dated, 6-7-2000. Ext.P2 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 6-7-2000 sent by opposite party to the complainant. Ext.P3 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 9-3-2001 sent by opposite party to the complainant. Ext.P4 : Photo copy of the bill for Rs.8,476/- dated, 11-4-2000. Ext.P5 : Photo copy of the bill for Rs.11,162/- dated, 9-5-2000. Ext.P6 : Photo copy of the bill for Rs.8658/- dated, 9-6-2000. Ext.P7 : Photo copy of the bill for Rs.9,638/- dated, 11-8-2000. Ext.P8 : Photo copy of the bill for Rs.2,160/- dated, 10-7-2000. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the judgement in O.P.10567/2001 dated, 16-3-2006 of High Court of Kerala. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER