By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :

The Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
 

The complaint in brief is as follows.

The Complaint is a consumer of electricity in consumer No.3134 to his residence. The 1^st and 2^nd floor of the building of the consumer is having a different consumer number that are 7509 the building is used as lodge for rent. The 3^rd floor is the auditorium. The shopping rooms facing the road is having an another consumer number supplying electricity that is consumer No.562. Courtyard in front of the residence is having supply of electricity from the house. The complainant is a payee of electricity charges without any failure.

2. On 25.10.2003 when the Complainant and the family members were not in the house, the Opposite Party made a surprise inspection in the building and two demand cum disconnection notices were issued to the Complainant. The allegation of the 2^nd Opposite Party against the Complaint is that the Complainant had unauthorizedly used electric energy from consumer No.3134 and extension line was also drawn. The Complainant was demanded to pay a sum of Rs.68,540/- towards one bill and in the consumer No.7509 for using surplus electrical energy an another bill was issued in which Rs.7,200/- is directed to pay. There is no unauthorized use of energy from the connection supplied to the house. The inspection of the Opposite Parties are not legally correct.

3. The Complainant in pursuance of the notices received, gave a written complaint to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad and following this further inspection was held at the premises of the complaint. It is known to the Complainant in this stage that the supply of electricity to the lodge does not pass through the main switch, instead even if the main switch is off the supply of electricity continued in the lodge. This is only because of the defect in wiring. The consumption of electricity in the lodge is how ever recorded in the meter installed in the lodge. The Opposite Party misconceived that the Complainant is unauthorizedly using the power supplied for the domestic purpose for the purpose other than domestic. The method of inspection by the Opposite Party is not proper and the findings they

arrived are incorrect. The Complainant has not done any mistake in the consumption of energy and the electricity was not unauthorizedly used. The demand cum disconnection notices issued to the Complainant No.95511 and 95513 are not legally sustainable and it is to be canceled. There is no disorder or any impropriety in the consumption of energy. The Opposite Party has done the deficiency in demanding an exorbitant and imaginary amount from the Complainant. The inspection of the Opposite Party is also illegal and incorrect. The complaint is to be exonerated from the liability of the amount demanded in the bill Nos.95511 and 95513 and the bill is to be canceled. The Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

4. The Opposite Parties filed version. The sum up of the version is as follows. The Complainant is a consumer of electricity. The consumer No.7509 is a lodge and consumer No. 3134 is the residence. The tariff applicable to the domestic purpose is in low range and the tariff to the lodge is for commercial purpose and it is comparatively higher than the domestic purpose. on surprise inspection to the premises on 25.10.2003 unauthorized additional load in consumer No.7509 was detected and temporary extension from consumer No.3134 was also found out. The supply from domestic connection was unauthorizedly done by the Complainant using 315A switches. The working of the pump set for the water supply to the lodge was done with electricity to the domestic connection. Another connection was drawn from consumer No.3134 unauthorizedly crossing the public road. In pursuance of the inspection the supply to the consumer No.3134 was disconnected on the very same day and an additional bill was given for Rs.68,540/- to the consumer No.3134. Beyond that the another additional bill was given for Rs.7,200/- to the consumer No.7509 on the light of surprise inspection of the Anti Power Theft Squad.

5. The Complainant filed an appeal to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Thiruvananthapuram and the Complainant was directed to deposit 30% of the additional bills. The Complainant had not deposited as ordered by the Deputy Chief Engineer and the appeal was dismissed inlimine . The allegation of the Complainant is that at the time of inspection the Complainant was not present and as a result the inspection is improper and incorrect is absolutely baseless. The Anti Power Theft Squad made the surprise inspection for which the presence of the Complainant is not necessary. The Manager of the lodge was present at the time of inspection. The Complainant is bound by provision to pay an approximate amount of Rs.1,57,500/- including the interest to this Opposite Parties. The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

6. The points in consideration are.

1. Whether any deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:- Both the Complainant and Opposite Parties filed proof affidavit interalia contenting the facts. Exts. A1 to A5 are marked by the Complainant and the exhibits

of the Forum marked as Exts.C1 and C2. The Opposite Parties filed documents which are marked as Exts.B1 to B10.

8. The case of the Complainant is that the supply of electricity is to the house of the Complainant and the lodge in the same building. The consumer number of electricity to the house is 3134 and lodge is in the consumer No.7509. The supply of electricity to the lodge continued even when the main switch is in off stage. The unauthorized drawing of the line from domestic connection was not done as alleged by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party issued a bill to the Complainant demanding the payment of Rs.68,540/- and subsequently an another bill of Rs.7,200/- was issued to the Complainant for the additional load of consumption. The allegation of the Opposite Party is incorrect and improper. According to the Complainant the circute of electricity continued even when the main switch is off and it is due to the faulty meter and the mistake in wiring. The Complainant is not responsible for it. The fact which is to be considered is that whether the amount in the bill demanded by the Complainant is proper or not. In order to establish the case of the Complainant, the Complainant filed the demand cum disconnection notice of Rs.7,200/- dated 28.10.2003 and another notice dated 31.10.2003 for the payment of Rs.68,540/-. Exts.C1 and C2 are the reports of the Commissioner in which it is submitted that the car shed which was in existence was demolished before the inspection. The Commission Report further states that the wiring of the lodge is not proper however there is recording of energy in the meter. The allegation of the Complainant is reaffirmed by the Assistant Executive Engineer in his report on the application of the Complainant to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad on 7.11.2003 which is marked with objection as Ext.A5. Whereas Ext.B1 is the photocopy of the same application given to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Thiruvananthapuram. The endorsement which is seen in Ext.A5 are not seen in Ext.C1. The Assistant Executive Engineer who was in charge of the relevant area is examined as OPW2. It is admitted by this Assistant Executive Engineer that when a dispute is under consideration of the Deputy Chief Engineer making a command upon it by the Assistant Executive Engineer on the bill issued by the Assessing Officer, is invariably not correct. In the instant case the Assistant Executive Engineer made a command upon the application of the Complainant and the same was given to the Complainant himself. The entries in the Ext.A5 is admitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer who is examined as OPW2 which is found to be improper on his part. The photocopies of the meeter reading register shows that the consumption of electricity in consumer No.3134 (Domestic Tariff) for the period of preceding three months before inspection is 2120 unit. The consumption of energy in the same connection after inspection the bills 11/03 to 3/04 in total comes 1004 unit alone. The consumption of electricity has reduced to its half after inspection similarly consumption of energy in commercial tariff in consumer No.7509 also shows considerable difference in the consumption of unit before and after inspection. The issuance of the bill demanding charge for the additional load cannot be considered as a deficiency in service and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- The Complainant demanded for quashing the bills issued by the Opposite Party demanding for Rs.68,540/- and Rs.7,200/-. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for however the Opposite Party has to charge an interest at the rate of 6% for the amount demanded. Towards the unauthorized use of energy a fresh bill including interest at the rate of 6% from the date of demand of the earlier bill is to be issued to the Complainant. The Complainant has to remit this amount on receiving the demand notice from the Opposite Party. The Complainant is also entitled to pay the amount in the bill demanded subsequently in 10 equal monthly instalments from the date of issuance of the bill by the Opposite Party.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st March 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

PW1. Ibrahimkutty Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties :

OPW1. E.P. Sathyakumar Assistant Engineer K.S.E.

OPW2. Kuriakose. P.P Assistant Executive Engineer

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Notice dt 31.10.2003

A2. Notice dt. 31.10.2003

A3. Demand Notice dt. 28.10.2003

A4. Demand Notice dt. 28.10.2003

A5. Complaint and Report dt. 3.11.2003

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties :

B1. Letter dt.3.11.2003

B2. True copy of statement

B3. Proceedings of the Deputy

Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad

B4. True copy of Site mahazar dt.25.10.2003

B5. True copy of Confidential report dt. 25.10.2003

B6. True copy of Confidential report dt. 25.10.2003

B7.(Series) True copy of the relevant pages

of the consumer's personal ledger of

consumer No. 3134.

B8. Consumption details

B9. True copy of the relevant pages of the

consumer's personal ledger of consumer

No. 7509.

B10. Consumption details.