Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The gist of the complaint is as follows:

The complaint filed earlier No. O.P. 269/2000 against the Opposite Parties was withdrawn with the permission to file a fresh. The Complainant is an agriculturist for irrigation purpose electricity connection was given to the Complainant by the opposite party. The formalities required for the supply of energy was done by the Complainant, satisfied with the requirements the Opposite Party gave electric connection in the month of April 2000. Later on 15.9.2000 the 1^st Opposite Party disconnected the electric supply on the ground that wiring is defective. The defects were rectified and informed the 1^st Opposite Party, subsequently the Opposite Party sent to the complainant a demand cum disconnection notice demanding Rs. 16,200/- which was to be paid before 10.10.2000. The Opposite Party alleged that the Complainant took a temporary extension of 1 KW electricity from the Consumer No. 5039 and penal charge of Rs.30/- per day for a period of Six months together with the penalty amounting three times of the said amount in total which comes Rs.16,200/-. The allegation of the Opposite Party is false and without any reason. No illegal connection from the said consumer number was taken by the Complainant. The supply of electricity was used only for the agricultural purpose. No proper notice was issued to the complainant for disconnection of supply of energy. The installation of the motor and other accessories were strictly complying to the norms required. For the construction of Pump house and other expenses, the Complainant spent Rs. 50,000/-. The disconnection of energy resulted heavy loss to the Complainant.

2. The Complainant had already applied for domestic connection of electricity. The disconnection of power supply to the agricultural purpose effected earlier application of the Complainant for domestic purpose. The Complainant is an aged man with long cherished ambition to get the house electrified. The disconnection of electricity to the pump house of the Complainant and refusal of the electricity connection in the house are the deficiency in service. The disconnected supply of energy is to be restored along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The demanded in the notice for Rs. 16,200/- is to be canceled. The Opposite Party may be directed to restore the electricity connection to the Complainant in the consumer No. 5034.

3. The Opposite Party filed version. The electricity connection for agricultural purpose which was given to the Complainant is admitted the Complainant is bared by limitation and more over the reason for the withdrawal of O.P. No.269/2000 is not known to the Opposite Party. The electricity connection obtained for agricultural purpose was motivated illegally so as to get priority under the agricultural scheme. The consumption charge of electricity levied upon the Complainant was Rs.120/- as per the provisional invoice card and the guaranty charge was paid up to 7/2000. The Anti Power Theft Squared Kozhikode Unit on surprise visit detected that the Complainant had unauthorizedly drawn energy 1 KW to the near by house for the domestic purpose. The motor pump set and other fittings were not done at the site. The supply of energy for agricultural purpose was misused. Towards the misuse of energy 3 time of respective tariff for previous Six months was charged and penal bills for Rs.16,200/- is demanded. The consumer did not remit the amount and the supply of energy was disconnected. The disconnection of electricity was strictly adhering to norms and conditions. The allegation of the Complainant that the crops were ruined in the non supply of energy is nothing but false. No preparations for irrigation purpose was done by the Complainant. The supply of energy was obtained by the Complainant in misrepresentation and the Opposite Parties were mislead to give the supply. The pump house where connection was given is not permanent in nature no pipe fittings and other accessories were seen in the site of the Complainant. Temporary extension is drawn to the house near by owned by the Complainant. The certificate issued by Krishi Bhavan does not details the survey number of the agricultural land. The Complainant was in use of the electric energy for domestic purpose deviating from the agricultural need. More over there is no source of water for irrigation purpose.

4. The employees of K S E B were actually in collusion with the Complainant for the supply of electricity to the Complainant. The official who acted behind where subjected to disciplinary action. The application of the Complainant for energy of domestic purpose with consumer No.8548 which is under normal priority on 30.8.2000. The supply of energy is not effected since the registration is not in order. The Complainant kept away all the required formalities for agricultural connection and acted in collusion with the officials of the electricity board. The Complainant is demanded to pay Rs. 16,200/- as per the rules. The complaint is not maintainable barred by limitation and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.

5. The legal heirs of the Complainant filed I.A No. 14/07 to supplement them as the Petitioners, the petition was allowed and the legal heirs are supplemented as the party.

6. The points in consideration are:

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:- The son of the deceased Madhavan is examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to A9 are marked for the Complainants side. The Commission Report filed is marked as Ext.C1. The opposite Party filed affidavit and tendered oral evidence. The case of the Complainant is

that the electricity connection in the consumer No. 5039 was availed for agricultural purpose. The Opposite Party made a surprise visit by the Anti Power Theft Squared. The Complainants were given a demand cum disconnection notice of Rs.16,200/-. On detection of temporary extension from the above consumer number to make use of the energy for domestic purpose. Subsequently the Opposite Party disconnected the supply of energy, the Opposite Party reiterated that disconnection of the electricity supply to the consumer No.5039 is due to unauthorized drawing of energy diverting from the agricultural purpose. The supply of electricity was given on priority basis since the application was given for agricultural purpose. The Officials in Electricity Department acted in collusion and the connection was given in the agricultural purpose. The requisites for agricultural supply was not maintained by the Complainant. The Commissioner was appointed to inspect and report premises to where the electric line was drawn and to report it is marked as Ext.C1. The report of the Commissioner exemplifies that to the pump house service line is drawn. The pump house is not in permanent nature. The well constructed in 7 concrete rings is seen reported adjusent to the pump house. As per the reports for the purpose of irrigation no motor is installed in the pump house. The case of the Complainant is that the electric supply was availed for agricultural purposes. The Ext.A1 is the bill issued by the Anti Power Theft Squared on inspection dated 15.9.2000. The amount assessed for penalizing the consumer is at 3 times for a period of 180 days. The Complainant cannot brought out in evidence that the consumption of energy was absolutely used for agricultural purpose. Ext.A3 is the notice given by the 1^st Opposite Party to the deceased father of the Complainant. The reason for disconnection was due to the improper and defective wiring of the pump house. The leakage of energy resulted electric shock in meeter board. The disconnection of electricity was upon the conditions that on installation of motor and upon the completion of the accessory works the supply of energy will be reinstated. The Complainant has given the request to the 1^st Opposite Party on curing the defects and it is marked as Ext.A2 series. The 1^st Opposite Party is authorized to supply energy on installation of the motor and pump set along with other accessories. The supply here in was given in advance. How ever the issuance of the demand cum disconnection notice dated 27.9.2000 to the deceased father of the complainant is not complying the provisions. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

8. Point No.2:- The Opposite Party demanded Rs.16,200/- basing of the assessment for 180 days and 3 times as the penal charge for the extension of energy of 1 KW from the consumer number. The assessment of the 1^st Opposite Party is not accurate and enforcible. In Kerala State Electricity V/S C. Najeeb and Another (2005 (1) KLJ Page 344) Hon'ble High Court held that the Electricity Board can assess 1 ½ times of the tariff as the penal charge for a period of three months in the case of domestic and agricultural purpose. The demand cum disconnection notice issued by the Opposite Party is inconsistent and not maintainable and hence the bill dated 27.9.2000 of the consumer No. M. 5039 is canceled. The Opposite Party has to issue fresh bill to the Complainant in 1 ½ times of the tariff for the period of three months. The application of the Complainant for supply of energy to the domestic purpose is to be considered on the priority basis. The reconnection of the electric supply is to be done by the Opposite Party, within one week from the payment of the amount in the fresh bill issued to the Complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The bill dated 27.9.2000 quashed, the Opposite Party is directed to issue fresh bill for the back assessment of three months for an amount of 1 ½ time as the penal charge. The Opposite Party is further directed to reconnect the supply of energy within 7 days after the payment of the bill amount issued as such. The Opposite Parties are directed to comply with this within one month from the date of receival of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 25^th day of September 2008.