KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.871/06 JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.09 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. The Secretary, KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum. 2. The Asst.Executive Engineer, (Distribution) KSEB, Adimali.P.O, Idukki. 3. The Asst. Engineer, -- APPELLANTS KSEB, Adimali.P.O, Idukki. 4. Bakkar, Lineman, KSEB, Adimali.P.O, Idukki. (By Adv.Vineeth kumar & Ors) Vs. Babu K.Varghese Keeppanasseril House, -- RESPONDENT Adimali.P.O, Idukki District. (By Adv.P.Jayapalan Thampi) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in CC 51/06 dated 5.10.06. The appellants are the opposite parties. In short the complainant purchased a residential building, stood in the name of one Jacob Mathew Pullan, in the year 2004. The building was having electric connection with Consumer No.2111/Adly under LT I (a) tariff. After the purchase, the complainant was remitting the electricity charges as per the bills issued, after taking meter reading. He paid the last bill on 5.1.2006 amounting to Rs.106/-. But o n 20.2.2006 at about 5.45 P.M, opposite parties 3 and 4 along with certain others kept to the house of the complainant and unauthorizedly cutoff the service wire and dismantled and broke open the electric meter. The opposite party has also abused the complainant, stating that the complainant had committed theft of electricity, and he took away the meter. On 22.2.2006 the 4th opposite party served on the complainant, a bill for Rs.15,440/- and the same was received by the complainant under objection. It is alleged that everything was done unauthorisedlly by the 3rd opposite party for illegal gratification. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for cancellation of the illegal bill and also for a direction for restoration of the power supply and payment of compensation. 2. The opposite parties appeared and filed their written version. They contended that the complainant did not make any application for change of the electric connection within 15 days of purchase of the building, as contemplated by the KSEB Rules and no legal action also taken for the change of connection. He is misusing the connection in the name of another person and was displaying the electricity Board. There is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties and he is not entitled to claim protection under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant had never informed the Board regarding the electric equipments installed by his after the purchase and no agreement also was executed with the Board. The use of electricity stated by him in the complaint is not correct. The opposite parties have conducted only the checking of the meter which is part of their duty. By examining the meter in the premises of the complainant, it was found that the MRT seal and the terminal seal were tampered and that the complainant had tampered with the meter. Immediately opposite parties 2 and 4 have dismantled the meter and a site mahazer was prepared. The complainant was never abused by the opposite parties. Theft of electricity by the complainant was detected and procedure as per the Electricity Act were completed and penal assessment was made demanding Rs.15,440/- from the complainant. It is for avoiding payment of the amount that the complaint has been filed, alleging false grounds. The opposite parties have penalize to check the electric connection and the meter at any time and if any reliable information has been received regarding the tampering of meter, no show cause notice need be given by the consumer. The opposite parties have prepared the mahazar legally in the presence of the complainant after giving opportunity for him to explain his position. No deficiency in service has been occurred and the complainant has no right to get the electric supply restored and the opposite parties are not liable for any compensation. 3. For the complainant Balu K Varghese was examined as PW1 and marked Ext.P1 to P9. No evidence including oral and documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties in this case. The forum below considered all the aspects and taken the view that there was no evidence also has been produced to satisfy the complainant that there was any evidence of tampering on the electric meter. It also seen that there is no evidence to show that the meter taken into custody was subjected for inspection by competent authority. The mahazer alleged to have been prepared by the third opposite party has not been produced. For the above case the consumer has a right to know why the service connection to his premises was disconnected and the meter was dismantled and taken away. Though it was represented to the complainant that the meter was being produced before the police, there is no evidence to show that it was actually produced before the police or before any authority superior to the 2nd opposite party. Therefore, there is serious deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in disconnecting the supply and issuing Ext.P4 penal bill dated 21.2.06 and direct the first opposite party to conduct the detailed enquiry regarding the alleged tampering of the meter by subjecting the same for inspection by a statutory authority and after giving opportunity for the complainant being heard and to fix liability if any or the complainant. Till that time the electric supply will continue and the complainant will pay the bills as demanded occupying whom in abeyance. 4. On this day this appeal came before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant argued before the appeal memorandum that the finding of the forum below is not in accordance with the provisions of the low and evidence and it is subject allowed and set side the order of the forum below. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants are having the absolute power and authority to enter the premises of the complainant and detect any appellants inspects with any errors the electricity. But this Commission is not seeing the appellant had taken any effort to produce any document or adduce any oral evidence. The appellant is vehemently argued that they prepared the site mahazer according to the provisions of the Electricity Act. But, it was not produced before the forum below. In the absence of this peace of evidence the appellant have no right to raise such a courtalias. 5. Heard both sides. This Commission is seeing that the order passed by the forum below is strictly accordance with law and evidence and legally sustainable. There is no reason for interfere with the impugned order passed by the forum below. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. These points are answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT | 
