<br /> <br /> <br /> BY SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant got an electric supply in 1981 with consumer NO.02047the complainant is paying the electricity charges regularly. On 15.1.2004 the opp.;party visited the residence of the complainant with a few officials. They alleged theft of electricity by the complainant no theft . The meter was installed in the year 1991 no periodical check up was made by the opp.party in the metre. The observation made by the opp.party in the metre was due to the movement of the meter. The opp.party imposed an addition bill of Rs.9219/- after IMPOSING an amount 9219/- the complainant’s bill never gone beyond Rs.200/-. The additional bill was imposed with a due to the harash the complainant. The complainant has remitted 1/3 amount of Rs.2532/- on 6.2.2004. The complainant is a consumer and the action of opp.party is deficiency in service hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> The opp.party filed a joint version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is a consumer under Electrical Section Veliyam with the Consumer NO.02047 under 1[A] tariff. On 15.2.2004 based on the telephone call received electric section Veliyam that the theft of electricity is going on in the premises of the Consumer No.2047 the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Veliyam conducted surprise inspection of the premises. At the time of his inspection he noticed that the MRT seal of energy meter provided in the consumer premises was in damaged condition and one duplicate open seal was provided in the meter. It was further notice that the meter covered was in open condition and the consumer can easily stop the rotation of the disk of the meter by inserting film or other materials this he convinced that the energy meter is destroyed by the consumer . The A.E prepared a site mahazar in the presence of the consumer but the complainant was not willing to sign the mahazar. Based on the connected load in the premises of the consumer penal bill for Rs.9219/- including the cost of meter issued to the consumer for a period of 6 months with as average power consumption of 6 units per day. The consumer voluntary remitted Rs.2532/- and Rs.1525 towards as cost of the meter. The complainant has cause of action there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> Based on the contention the following issue points arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> <br /> [1] Whether there is deficiency in service on the party of the opp.parties<br /> [2] Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1. is examined . Exts. P1 to P6 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.parties DDW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 is marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points 1 and 2:<br /> <br /> The complaint has given evidence as PW.1. We are stated that on 15.1.2004 the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section Veliyam iwith some other officials visited the premises of the complainant and they prepared a mahazar of the electric meter installed in the complainant house and stated that the complainant has committed theft of electricity. Subsequently they issue Ext.P2 for Rs.9219/-. The contention of the complainant is that he has not committed any theft electricity but the defects noticed by the opp.parties was due to the movement of the meter. According to the opp.parties they have visited the premises of the complainant on the basis of telephone call receiving at the electrical section Veliyam and conducted surprise inspection and it was noticed that the MRT seal of the energy meter provided in the premises of the complainant was in a damaged condition and a duplicate open seal provided in the meter. It was further notice that the meter covered was in a condition . Consumer can easily stock in the rotation of the meter by inserting film or other material on notice. This aspects the way found that the energy meter was destroying by the consumer therefore he prepared Ext.D1 site mahazar by the consumer was not willing to signed the mahazar on the connected load in the premises of the consumer a penal bill Ext.P2 penal bill was issued including the cost of the meter.<br /> <br /> As a matter of fact there is no mention in the Ext.D1 that in theft of electricity was introduced by the inspection party. All that is stated in the version as well as the mahazar is that the energy meter is destroyed by the consumer. The learned counsel of the counsel of the complainant would argued that Ext.P1 series receipts issued prior to the issuance of Ext.P1 and Ext.P6 series issued after the inspection of the meter and installation the new meter . There is no notable difference in the energy charges from which attach easily infirmed as that the complainant has not committed any theft of energy has alleged. He would further argued that the preparation of Ext.P2 bill is not in accordance with the section 26 of the Electricity Act 1910 which provides that an Electrical Inspector alone can check a defective meter the competent issue a penal bill and in support of his contention he is relied on the decision of High Court of Kerala reported in 2006 [3] KLT 465. But that decision is not applicable in this case in that decision itself. It is clearly stated that the provisions of section 26 is not applicable in the case of tampering of the meter by the consumer which is not a case of defective meter and in such cases that interference by the electrical inspector is not warrants. Therefore the contention is not sustainable. But as already said a perusal of Ext.p1 series and P6 serious would clearly show that more or less uniform consumer of electricity is there which would indicate without the allegations of theft is not true or probably. The opp.parties have changed the damaged meter for which they have charged Rs.1525. But in the absence of any material to show that they have detected theft of energy there are not justifiable in Exst.P2. In these circumstances we are constrained to quash Ext.P2 bill less 1525/- collected towards cost of new meter. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result we allowed the complaint in part, directing the opp.party to refund Rs. 7694/- [9219-1525]. In the circumstances we no order as costs..<br /> <br /> Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> P1. – series – Additional bill<br /> <br />