BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 30^th of April 2011

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                        SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.243/2010

(Admitted on 09.09.2010)

Dasharatha Gowda,

So. Sannanna Gowda,

Aged about 80 years,

RA. Mallar House,

Madhuvan, Enekallu,

Sullia Takluk,

Dakshina Kannada.                           …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Sanjay D)

          VERSUS

1. Assistant Executive Engineer,

   MESCOM,

   Sullia Sub Division

   Sullia, Dakshina Kannada.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer,

   L.T. Rating, MESCOM,

   Sub-Division,

   Puttur.                                   ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.S.M. Bhat).

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant is the consumer of the electricity power under the meter No.GAEH-1524 for 2 kilo watts for his residential purpose.  It is stated that, the average bill of the above meter is between Rs.200/- to Rs.350/- per month.  There is no due whatsoever payable by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. 

It is stated that, on 05.05.2010, the 2^nd Opposite Party has conducted inspection of the Complainant’s meter and prepared the letter dated 05.05.2010 stating that the Complainant has committed theft of electricity bypassing the meter and thereafter the electricity was disconnected to the house of the Complainant.  It is submitted that, the Complainant has never committed theft of the electricity power.  On 06.05.2010 the Complainant has received the bill for Rs.22,633/- from the 1^st Opposite Party and called upon to file objection within seven days and demanded to pay the bill amount within 30 days.  The Complainant issued a Lawyer’s notice on 29.05.2010 and the 2^nd Opposite Party issued a reply.  It is stated that, the Opposite Parties have not followed the procedure laid down under the Electricity Act and KPTCL Distribution Code.  The bill dated 06.05.2010 for Rs.22,633/- is arbitrary and without any basis which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to declare that the bill dated 06.05.2010 for Rs.22,633/- is null and void and to repay the same to the Complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from 12.05.2010 till payment and also claimed Rs.30,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version admitted that, the Complainant is the registered consumer of the electricity power under meter No.GAEH 1524 and sanctioned 2 KW electricity power to him.  It is stated that, during the inspection on 05.05.2010 by the Opposite Parties, it is found that the terminal cover was removed and inserted 5 cm aluminum single stand wire bypassing the meter, thereby the Complainant has committed theft of the power.  The Opposite Parties immediately prepared the mahazar and registered the FIR in Crime No.94/2010 under Section 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  It is further stated that, the Complainant has admitted the theft of electricity and paid the penalty and the case was closed.  There is no deficiency whatsoever as alleged by the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Sri.Dasharatha Gowda (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him.   Ex C1 to C10 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.   One Sri.Yashavanth (RW1), Assistant Executive Engineer and one Sri.Mini George (RW2), Assistant Engineer of the Opposite Parties filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on them.  Ex R1 to R7 were marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure.   The Complainant produced notes of arguments along with citations and Sections 56 and 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  Opposite Parties produced notes of arguments.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                       Point No.(i): Negative.

                       Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.   

Reasons

5.  Point No. (i) to (iii):

In the instant case, the facts which are not in dispute is that, the Complainant is the consumer of the Electricity Power under meter No.GAEH - 1524 for his residential purposes. 

Now the grievances of the Complainant is that, the 2^nd Opposite Party has conducted inspection of the meter on 05.05.2010 and issued a letter dated 05.05.2010 stating that the Complainant has committed theft of the electricity power bypassing the meter.  It is the contention of the Complainant that, he had not committed any theft of the electricity power so given to him and the bill issued by the Opposite Parties for Rs.22,633/- is arbitrary and illegal.  It is further stated that, the Opposite Parties have not followed the procedure laid down under the Electricity Act and KPTCL Distribution Code and further stated that, the 2^nd Opposite Party has disconnected the power supply to the Complainant’s house on 05.05.2010 without prior notice which amounts to deficiency, hence came up with this complaint.

On the contrary, the Opposite Parties contended that, at the time of investigation on 05.05.2010 it was found that the Complainant bypassed the electrical meter terminal cover and inserted 5 cm length aluminum wire and bypassed the electricity power.  After the investigation, they have conducted mahazar and acted in accordance with code 42.06 (A) and (B) and section 151 of the Electricity Act 2003, action was taken and there is no lapse, the bill issued by them is proper.

The Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C10.  Opposite Parties also filed evidence of RW1 and RW2 and produced Ex R1 to R7.

On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, the Complainant is a consumer of electricity power supplied by the Opposite Parties under meter No.GAEH – 1524.  The Ex R1 is the FIR, Ex R2 is the mahazar, Ex R3 is the complaint dated 05.05.2010 and Ex R4 is the back billing notice dated 06.05.2010 clearly reveals that, on 05.05.2010 the Puttur MESCOM, LT Rating Sub-Divisional Engineer while he was on duty he investigated the above said meter of the Complainant, wherein, the seal of the terminal cover was broken, main phase and load phase was connected with 5 cm aluminum single stand wire and bypassed the electricity power and prepared the mahazar and also registered the case against the Complainant.  The above documents  produced by the Opposite Parties it clearly show that the Complainant has committed theft of the electricity power, thereafter they have issued a notice dated 06.05.2010 i.e., back billing notice and called upon to file an objection to the above said notice.  The Complainant filed objection to the above said notice and also paid the bill amount issued by the Opposite Parties in this case.  When that being the case, we do not find any lapse on the part of the Opposite Parties.  When a consumer commits theft of the electricity power, the said consumer shall be punished in accordance with Law. 

We have noticed that, the Complainant seriously denied the allegation of the theft but the mahazar and the FIR as well as the back bill issued by the Opposite Parties clearly reveals that, the Complainant has committed theft of the electricity.  Since the subject dispute involved in this case with regard to the theft of electricity, the disconnection notice is not pre-requisite.  It has to be appreciated that the licencee undertaking is performing a public duty and is governed by special statute and the Law.  The Opposite Parties have got no illwillness with the Complainant.  The mahazar produced by the Opposite Parties is sufficient to establish / to show that the Complainant has committed theft of the electricity power by inserting aluminum wire in this case.  In a case of theft committed by the consumers it would be necessary to take an action and such complaints should not be encouraged even though if there is a little lapse on the part of the Opposite Parties.  In the instant case, the Opposite Parties conducted an inspection in the presence of the Complainant / consumers representative and he has signed the mahazar, when that being the case, the mode / method adopted by the Complainant to extract the power amounts to theft and it finds a place in the mahazar, hence we hold that absolutely no deficiency and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  No order as to costs.        

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                          

ORDER

            The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.

(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of April 2011.)

PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                              MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri.Dasharatha Gowda – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 05.05.2010: Copy of the letter given by the 2^nd O.P.

Ex C2 – 06.05.2010: Original bill issued by the 1^st Opposite Party.

Ex C3 – 12.05.2010: Letter of the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.

Ex C4, C4(A), C4(B):  Receipts (3 in numbers).

Ex C5 – 29.05.2010: Lawyer’s notice issued to the Opposite Parties on behalf of the Complainant.

Ex C6 – 05.06.2010: Reply of the 2^nd Opposite Party to the legal notice dated 29.05.2010.

Ex C7, C8, C9 and C10 – 18.05.2008, 18.02.2009, 20.12.2009, 20.04.2010: Original bills (4 in numbers).

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1 –  Sri.Yashavanth, Assistant Executive Engineer of the Opposite Parties.

RW2 – Sri.Mini George, Assistant Engineer of the Opposite Parties.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties: 

Ex R1 – 06.05.2010: First Information report.

Ex R2 – 05.05.2010: Mahazar.

Ex R3 – 05.05.2010: Complaint regarding theft of electricity.

Ex R4 – 06.05.2010: Back billing notice issued by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant along with consumption details.

Ex R5 – 05.06.2010: Reply of the 2^nd Opposite Party to the legal notice dated 29.05.2010.

Ex R6 – 05.05.2010: Letter/notice of the Opposite Party No.2 to the Opposite Party No.1.

Ex R7 , 7(A), 7(B) and 7(C) – Photos regarding the theft of electricity.

Dated: 30.04.2011                          PRESIDENT