BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 78/2002 Filed on 11.03.2002

Dated : 30.03.2009

Complainants:

1. Sukumaran, Kattuvila Veedu, Melvettoor P.O, Varkala.

    

2. Alex Babu.S, Madathikuzhi Veedu, Panthuvila, Ayanthi, Varkala.

Opposite parties:

1. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Palachira, Varkala.

2. Sudhakaran, Sub Engineer.

3. Bhasi, Overseer

4. Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom.

(By adv. G. Gopidas)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 08.11.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 16.02.2009, the Forum on 30.03.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. 5969 under Electrical Section, Palachira, that on 11.07.2001 the spot biller of the opposite parties informed the complainant about the faultiness of the meter and on the same day itself the complaint was entered in the complaint book, that the bill for 07/01 was assessed on the basis of average consumption and the same was continued in 09/01 also, and that the meter was not replaced by opposite party. On 08.12.2001, an official of the KSEB came to the complainant's house on pretext to seal the meter and removed it and telephoned the officials of KSEB and informed them of theft of energy and disconnected the supply. The said inspection was done by the opposite parties in the absence of complainant and complainant was asked by opposite parties to pay Rs. 3,006/- in order to get reconnection and accordingly complainant paid the same on 10.12.2001. Opposite parties replaced the faulty meter with new one on 16.01.2002. Opposite party created the theft story only to conceal the fact of dereliction of duty on the part of opposite parties in not replacing the faulty meter even after repeated requests. Hence this complaint to quash the bill dated 10.12.2001 for Rs. 3,006/- and to get Rs. 25000/- towards compensation.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that consumer No. 5969 is in the name of one Sathya Babu, who was employee of the opposite parties and he obtained electric connection under Board Employees' priority category, that during 07/01 it was found that the meter was faulty and on the basis of average consumption a monthly bill was issued to the complainant. Complainant never filed any complaint before the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. On 08.12.2001 Sub Engineer inspected the premises and detected that energy was illegally drawn from the meter by the complainant by shortening the incoming point and outgoing point of the energy meter, that on that day itself the electric connection of the consumer was disconnected, that on the basis of the connected load the bimonthly average consumption of the consumer is 270 units and issued an invoice for Rs. 3006/- to the complainant, that on remittance of the said amount reconnection was effected, that the meter was again inspected on 16.01.2002 and found that the meter was not working properly and the same was replaced with new one. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bill of Rs. 3006 dated 10.12.2001 cancelled?

2. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Reliefs and costs.

In support of the complaint, 2^nd complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P10 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed affidavit and Ext. D1 series was marked.

Points (i) to (iii):- The case of the complainants is that 1^st complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. 5969 under electrical section, Palachira and 2^nd complainant, the son of the 1^st complainant is residing along with the 1^st complainant, that on 11.07.2001, the spot biller informed the complainant about the faultiness of meter and on the same day itself the same was entered in the complaint book and that the bill for 07/01 was assessed for 90 units on the basis of average consumption and the same was continued in 09/01 also. Since the meter was not replaced by the opposite parties, complainant personally met the 1^st opposite party and requested him to replace the faulty meter. On 08.12.2001, an official of the KSEB came to complainant's house on the pretext to seal the meter and removed it and telephoned other officials of the KSEB stating about the theft of energy and disconnected the supply of energy. It is submitted by the complainant that the said act was done by the opposite party in his absence, while the complainant's wife was alone in the house, who refused to sign the mahazar, in order to conceal their fault of not replacing the meter even after repeated requests. Complainant was asked by the 1^st opposite party to remit Rs. 3,006/- in order to get reconnection and accordingly paid the amount on 10.12.2001 and opposite party replaced the faulty meter with a new one on 16.01.2002. Main thrust of argument advanced by the complainant was that opposite parties created the theft story only to conceal the fact of dereliction of duty on their part of not replacing the faulty meter even after repeated requests. The main plea of the opposite party is that the Consumer No. 5969 is in the name of Mr. Sathya Babu, who was an employee of the opposite party, that during 07/01, it was found that the meter was faulty and on the basis of average consumption a monthly bill was issued to the complainant, that no such complaint was filed by the complainant before the opposite party on 08.12.2001. On inspection by the Sub Engineer it was detected that the energy was illegally drawn from the meter by the complainant by shortening the incoming point and outgoing point of the meter, and that on the basis of the connected load, the bimonthly average consumption was 270 units, on the basis of which, an adjustment invoice for Rs. 3,006/- was issued to the complainant and the complainant remitted the said amount on 10.12.2001 and reconnection was effected on that day itself and on 16.01.2002 the meter was again inspected and found the meter was not working and the same was replaced with new one. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill dated 11.09.2001 for Rs. 100/-. As per Ext. P1 in the consumption column it is stated that MSFAV 100 units. Ext. P2 is the copy of the receipt for Rs. 97/- issued by the opposite parties. Ext. P3 is the copy of the bill dated 06.11.2001 for Rs. 106/- where in the consumption column it is recorded that MSFAV 100 units. Ext. P4 is the copy of invoice dated 10.12.2001 for Rs. 2996/-. Ext. P5 is the copy of the receipt dated 10.12.2001 for Rs. 3006/-. Ext. P6 is the copy of the bill dated 09.01.2002 for Rs. 106/- for 100 units. Ext. P7 is the copy of the bill dated 08.03.2002 (after the installation of new meter on 16.12.2001) for Rs. 167/- for 140 units. Ext. P8 is the postal receipt addressed to the Minister, KSEB. Ext. P9 is the acknowledgement card and Ext. P10 is the copy of the letter addressed to the Minister, KSEB. On going through Exts. P1 to P3, it is seen that meter reading remained stagnant, that means the meter was not working from 11.07.2001 to 06.11.2001, which continued till the replacement of the faulty meter with new one. During the said period the consumption was assessed as 100 units. After replacement of the faulty meter with new one, on 16.01.2002 meter reading was taken as 122 units, on 08.03.2002 as per Ext. P7 the consumption is seen recorded as 140 units. The allegation raised by the opposite party is that complainant had stolen energy from the meter by shortening the incoming point and outgoing point and on detecting the theft, the electric connection of the consumer was disconnected and notice was issued to the complainant to remit the amount as per Ext. P4. It is pertinent to note that in case of unauthorized misuse of electricity, the same can be dealt with in accordance with law. Under the Electricity Act, in the case of alleged unauthorized use of electricity, procedure prescribed under 126 of the Act is required to be followed. Even if we refer to the amended provisions of Sec. 135, whereby 135(IA) is added with effect from 15.06.2007, then also in the case of apparent theft of energy the officers are required to make assessment under 126 of the Act. In this case, it is pertinent to note that without issuing any notice as contemplated under Sec. 126, or without passing any provisional order as contemplated under Sec. 126 of the Act, the officers straight way issued notice directing the complainant to pay an amount. This is nothing but arbitrary and against law. If the procedure prescribed under the Act is not followed, it is to be highlighted that the Act nowhere empowers the officers of the electricity company to act according to their whims and harass the consumers at large. Further in this case, it is submitted that the faultiness of meter was noted in the complaint book on 11.07.2001 on getting information from the spot biller. Even the officials of the opposite parties' office noted the faulty meter on 11.07.2001 and on 11.09.2001, 'No action was seen taken by the opposite party till 16.01.2002. It is pertinent to note that even after replacement of faulty meter with new meter, the consumption remained at 140 units. In the prior bills average consumption was 100 units. The difference comes around 40 units. Further, no police investigation was done, mahazar witnesses were not examined, no crime was registered and prior meter was not tested. Hence theft of energy not proved. Disconnection was illegal. Issuance of Ext. P4 invoice dated 10.12.2001 for Rs. 2996/- and collection of Rs. 3006/- by way of Ext. P5 dated 10.12.2001 is without basis. Hence Ext. P4 invoice and Ext. P5 receipts deserve to be cancelled. On the basis of Ext. P7 bill we fix average consumption at 140 units during the meter faulty period from 07/01 to 09.01.2002 (that is for four bimonthly bills). Opposite parties already had collected current charge on the basis of 100 units per bill. Opposite parties are entitled to get current charge for further 160 units (40x4) during the period of faultiness of meter. Evidently as per Ext. P5 opposite party had collected an amount of Rs. 3006/- from the complainant. This would amount to deficiency in service.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The invoice dated 10.12.2001 for Rs. 2996/- and receipt dated 10.12.2001 for Rs. 3,006/- issued by the opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties are directed to levy extra current charge for 160 units from the complainant in connection with Ext. P4 invoice dated 10.12.2001 and Ext. P5 receipt dated 10.12.2001, and adjust the said extra current charge for 160 units from the remitted amount of Rs. 3,006/- as per Ext. P5 receipt dated 10.12.2001 and refund the balance amount collected to the complainant. Opposite parties shall also pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- towards costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th March 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 78/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Alex Babu

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of Bill No. F 837217 dated 11.09.2001.

P2 - Photocopy of receipt.

P3 - Photocopy of bill dated 06.11.2001 and receipt.

P4 - Photocopy of notice dated 17.12.2001.

P5 - Photocopy of receipt.

P6 - Photocopy of Bill dated 09.01.2002.

P7 - Photocopy of Bill dated 08.03.2002.

P8 - Postal receipt dated 26.12.2001.

P9 - Postal acknowledgement card.

P10 - Copy of complaint addressed to the opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT