IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of October ,2011
Filed on 29-07-2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.164/2010
between
Complainant :- | Opposite parties:- |
Smt. Subashini, Jothis Bhavan, Karakkad P.O, Chengannur Taluk, Alappuzha District, Pin-689504 (Adv. Ravindran Nair, Karakkard) | 1.The Asst.Engineer, Electrical Sub Section (KSEB) Mulakuzha. 2. The Secretary Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. |
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
1. The case of the complainant in precise is as follows: - The complainant is the consumer bearing consumer No.4785 of the opposite parties. The complainant has been unfailingly paying the bill amount since she purchased her residence in 2009. The complainant’s energy connection was categorized in Domestic tariff Viz.LT-2. .Meanwhile in May 2010, the complainant opened ’Thattukada’ a small ,eatery in her residence. On 11th July 2010, sub engineer from the opposite parties visited the complainant’s premise and issued a bill under L T VII -A for Rs.73467/-
( Rupees Seventy three Thousand four hundred and Sixty Seven only ). The officer of the opposite party alleged theft of electric energy by the complainant. On being approached by the complainant, the opposite party revised the bill to Rs.24905/-( Rupees Twenty four thousand nine hundred and five only ). The bill was not prepared according to the provisions of existing law. The said officer of the opposite party has no authority to charge the penal bill. No site Mahasar was served. The opposite party hasn’t deducted the bill amount complainant paid for six months from the instant bill. The bill is vague and without any basis. The opposite party severed the energy connection of the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable in as much as the complainant’s grievance is as to the theft of energy. According to the opposite party, the complainant has admitted that the electric energy was being used for commercial purpose. The inspection effected in complainant premise and the consequent assessment of the energy charge is as per Rules and Regulations. The S4b engineer is a designated person to effect such inspection as per the Government order. Mr. Ravikumar who conducted examination of the complaint premise was also holding the charge of the Asst. Engineer at the material time. There was tampering of the meter which amounts to theft. The officer detecting theft is empowered to disconnect the energy supply, opposite party contends. On issuing the first bill, the complainant approached the opposite party and impressed upon that she was a recent dweller of the building and she produced proof for the same. Taking into account the said aspect the opposite party trimmed down the bill amount to Rs.24905/-(Rupees Twenty four thousand and nine hundred and five only ), the opposite party submits. According to the opposite party, site mahazar was drawn up on the spot and the same was issued then and there. But the complainant at that point of time misrepresented her name as Sudhamony instead of Subhashini with view to raise contentions as to the furnishing of Mahazar in future. The complainant has committed theft of electric energy. According to the opposite party a mistake has crept into the bill, and hence a fresh bill was issued to the complainant on withdrawing the former. Mistake or error on the part of the opposite party is not a ground to obtain a relief for the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is only to be dismissed, the opposite party fervently contends.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant herself as Pw 1, and the documents Exbts A 1 to A 6 were marked. On the side of the opposite party proof affidavit was filed and Exbts B 1 to B6 were marked.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up
for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant committed theft of electricity?
(2) Whether the opposite party’s issuance of the material
bills was legal?
(3) lf the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We, keeping the contentions of the parties alive in mind anxiously perused the pleadings, proof affidavits, argument notes and other materials placed on record by the parties. Apparently, it appears that with regard to the complainant’s alleged theft and unauthorized use of electrical energy, the opposite party has issued three penal bIlls one after the other. The Exbt A1- 1st bill dated 12th July 2010 was for Rs.73467/-(Rupees Seventy three thousand four hundred and sixty seven only ). Thereafter, on 14th July 2010 the opposite party issued Exbt A2 bill for an amount of Rs.24905/-(Rupees Twenty four thousand and nine hundred and five only ) on withdrawing the Exbt A 1 bill. Over again, the ExbtA2 bill was withdrawn and Exbt A3 bill dated 9th December 2010 afresh was issued for an amount of Rs.7891 (Rupees Seven thousand and Eight hundred and ninety one only ). According to the opposite party the 1st bill was pulled out for the complainant produced the title deed before the opposite party which suggested that the complainant purchased the said building of late. When the proportionate period was calculated the amount has come down to as in Exbit A2 bill. The ExbtA2 bill was ·further withdrawn and Exbt A3 bill was issued in line with the order of the Secretary of Vydyuthi Bhavanan. Interestingly it seems that the complainant still challenges the last bill Exbt A3 issued by the opposite party .. Now the immediate short question arises for consideration is whether there was theft and unauthorized use of energy by the complainant. To put it otherwise, whether the opposite party has been able to show before us that there was theft/unauthorized use of electricity. We carefully sifted through the materials let in by the parties. To bring home the aforesaid allegations against the complainant, the opposite party produced Mahazar and photograph of the material building. Strangely, in the Mahazar claimed to have been drawn up on the spot by the Sub Engineer the names of neither the preparing officer nor the complainant is figured. To this, the opposite party contends that the complainant, with oblique purpose misrepresented her name as ’Sudhamony’. Less said better about the Mahazar. The Mahazar is absolutely inconsequential in so far as the opposite party’s case is concerned. It is also crucial to notice that the opposite party has not adopted any steps to initiate criminal proceeding against the complainant. The opposite party’s excuses for not being resorted to the same sound weird and wonderful. Further, for the alleged tampering of meter, the opposite party has adduced no convincing evidence. Again, the opposite party contends that the sub Engineer is a designated person as per the Governments order. For the same also the opposite party has not produced any document. The opposite party ought to have produced documents in the wake of the complainant’s specific contention that the Sub Engeneer was not an empowered officer to carry out such an inspection in the complainant premise. As we have already on umpteen occasions observed, merely making statements will not suffice. Obviously, save making statements, the opposite party has not produced any evidence to bring home any its allegations against the complainant. We hold that the bills issued to the complainant are illegal and without any basis. We need hardly say that the complainant is entitled to relief.
6 .In view of the facts and findings herein above, the Exbt A3 bill stands
cancelled. The opposite party is so directed to issue a bill taking into account the average monthly charge of the energy consumed by the complainant in the immediate last three months prior to the material Exbt A3 bill and shall recover the same from the complainant. Subsequent to thereof, the opposite party shall regularize the tariff in line with the existing connected watts in the complainant premise
Complaint stands .disposed accordingly. No order as to cost or compensation
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October 2011.
Sd/-Sri.Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/-Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 -Copy of Current bill dated 12.07.2010
Ext.A2 -Original copy of current bill dated 14.07.2010
Ext.A3 -Original copy of current bill dated 9.12.20100
Ext.A4 -Copy of Electricity bill dated 09-06-2010
Ext.A5 -Copy of Notification dated 03/03/2005
Ext.A6 -Copy of Electricity dated 12.07.2010
Ext.A7 -Copy of Electricity dated 14.07.2010
Evidence of the Opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by:-
