By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint is preferred by the Power of Attorney holder of Sri. V.P. Moideen who is the Proprietor of V.P.M. Ice Plant which is conducted for his livelihood. Electricity to this Plant is supplied by opposite party and complainant is a consumer. Complainant used to pay the regular bills. While so, on 21-6-1999 Anti Power Theft Squad conducted an inspection and alleging theft of Electricity, the supply to the Ice Plant was disconnected. Complainant has not interferred with the meter in any manner. On 23-6-1999 an adjustment invoice for Rs.2,86,211/- was issued. Complainant submitted request for instalment facility. After paying the first instalment along with reconnection fee the supply was restored. Complainant thereafter has paid the whole amount in 20 instalments. Complainant is not liable to pay this amount. Due to disconnection the functioning of the Ice plant was put to halt for five days. Complainant suffered financial loss, mental agony and hardships due to the act of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party has filed version admitting that V.P. Moideen is a consumer for electricity supply to his Ice Plant. That on 21-6-1999 Anti Power Theft Squad conducted an inspection and found illegal abstraction of energy by tampering the meter by making a small hole on the body of the power meter at the left bottom side of dial glass. The consumption recorded did not commensurate with the connected load. The making of the hole in the meter is an intentional act to prevent rotation of the disc by inserting a splinter or piece of film. Site mahazar was prepared in the presence of staff of the Ice plant the representatives of complainant refused to sign the mahazar. Complainant requested for instalment facility which was allowed by Deputy Chief Engineer. After remitting the first instalment supply was restored. A criminal complaint was also lodged before Sub Inspector of Police, Tanur under Sec. 39 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for the offence of theft of electricity. Complainant then submitted an undertaking agreeing to bear the loss incurred to the Board. Considering this written undertaking the original proceedings initiated against him was dropped. The penal bill is issued as per Sec. 43 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Complainant is liable to pay the same. Complainant has stated in the undertaking that if he was present at the time of inspection there would not have been an occasion of not signing the mahazar. Complainant has filed this complaint after remitting the amount. The bill issued is as per rules. That complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.<br /> 3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by power of attorney holder of complainant and Exts.A1 to A4 marked. Counter affidavit filed by opposite party and Exts.B1 to B3 marked for opposite party.<br /> 4. Complainant challenges the adjustment invoice for Rs.2,86,211/- dated, 23-6-1999 which is Ext.A2. The complaint is resisted by opposite party upon the contention that during a surprise inspection conducted on 21-6-1999 by Anti Power Theft Squad, illegal abstraction of energy by interfering with the meter was detected. Opposite party placed reliance on Ext.B3 which is the site mahazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer of the respective electrical section. It is seen noted in Ext.B3 that the seal of the meter box of the power meter was forged and that there was a small hole on the left side of the dial glass of the meter which perse was stilted. It was also submitted by opposite party that a criminal case as Crime No.193/99 of Tanur Station was registered against V.P. Moideen, the defacto complainant, for theft under Sec. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Thereafter complainant submitted a written undertaking that he was ready to make good the loss sustained to Electricity Board and requested for relinquishment of all criminal proceedings. Ext.B1 is this undertaking in which complainant has requested to relinquish the criminal case initiated against him and has stated that he is willing to compensate any loss incurred to the Board. It is the case of opposite party that upon receiving Ext.B1 all further investigations and the criminal prosecution was totally dropped. Admittedly complainant has remitted the whole amount raised in Ext.A2 bill as undertaken by him in Ext.B1. The amount was remitted by instalments which is evidenced by Ext.A4 series. Thereafter this complaint challenging the bill is filed by complainant.<br /> 5. Ext.B3 mahazar proves that the meter had a hole which was stilted. Complainant has offered no explanation for the presence of the hole which apparently is on the side of the rotating disc. Such malpractices if done would be most inconspicuous and therefore the contention that the meter reader who took periodical readings did not notice the hole is unacceptable. Complainant has not furnished the electricity charges prior to and after the inspection to show that there was no illegal abstraction as contended by opposite party. Further complainant has impliedly admitted the mahazar by his statement in Ext.B1 that his staff refused to sign the mahazar due to ignorance and fear and that if he was present at the site there would not have been an occasion of not signing the mahazar. From these admissions and upon the undertaking of complainant to compensate the loss incurred to the Board by which he has availed the privilege of relieving from prosecution procedures we hold that complainant is not entitled to any further reliefs. We cannot refrain from stating that we are amazed that opposite party has dropped the criminal proceedings against the complainant/accused upon a request received from none other than the accused himself. We are not able to decipher which is the provision which enables the Assistant Engineer to withdraw prosecution on a request made by the accused. The Board is free to enquire into the matter. Complainant has failed to establish and prove a case in his favour.<br /> 6. In the result we dismiss the complaint. We make no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 18th day of November, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4<br /> Ext.A1 : Power of Attorney <br /> Ext.A2 : Demand and Disconnection notice for Rs.2,86,211/- dated,<br /> 23-6-1999 issued by opposite party to consumer No.1013<br /> Ext.A3 : Receipt for Rs.5/- dated, 24-6-1999 from opposite party to<br /> consumer No.1013<br /> Ext.A4(series) : Receipts (16 Nos.) from opposite party to consumer No.1013 <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B3<br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the request by complainant to Deputy Chief Engineer,<br /> APTS., Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> Ext.B2 : True photostat copy of letter dated, 21-6-1999 from Assistant Executive<br /> Engineer, APTS., Kozhikode to Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical <br /> Major Section, Parappanangadi.<br /> Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the Site Mahazar dated, 21-6-1999 prepared by<br /> K.V.Prabhakaran, Assistant Engineer, Electrical Major Section,<br /> Parappanangadi.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />