DATE OF FILING :

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of August, 2017

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.174/2017

Between

Complainant : K.S. Noushad,

Kollamkudiyil House,

Koompanpara P.O.,

Vellathooval, Idukki.

(By Adv: P. Alikhan)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydyuthi Bhavan,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Section, Adimali,

Adimali, Idukki.

3. The Deputy Chief Engineer,

Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(All by Adv: Lissy M.M.)

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant is that,

Complainant had availed a service connection of electricity under LT I(A) tariff bearing consumer No.8925 with an authorised connected load of 400 watts. On 10.8.2017, the opposite party along with some other officials of Electrical Section, Adimaly, conducted an inspection in the premises of the complainant and detected theft of electricity, prepared a mahazar and served copy to the complainant. On the basis of the inspection, they issued a provisional invoice demanding to pay an amount of Rs.37,316/- as penalty and after giving notice, the opposite party disconnected the power supply. Against this, the complainant approached the

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

Forum and filed a complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service.

On notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version by challenging maintainability of the complaint as primary issue. In their written version, opposite party specifically contended that the officials of Electrical Section, Adimaly detected theft of electricity in the premises of the complainant and the complainant with dishonest intention abstracted electricity, which is punishable under section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 (as amended in 2007). They further contended that the consumer, complainant was abstracting electricity from the incoming side of the meter. He was utilising unrecorded electricity. The deliberate act of the complainant caused financial loss to the KSEB. Therefore to realise the loss sustained to KSEB Ltd., the consumer was assessed under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. Since it is a penal office, the petition is not maintainable herein and it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Heard both sides.

We have gone through the point of argument of both the parties and carefully verified the documents. The question involved in the complaint is that whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum, against the assessment made under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 or action taken under section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act 2003.

For answering the question, the Forum verified the documents that produced by the 1^st opposite party to substantiate that they conducted the inspection lawfully and find out the unauthorised use of electricity. From the scene mahazar and the photograph produced by the opposite party, the Forum convinced

(cont.....3)

- 3 -

that the complainant abstracted electricity unauthorisedly and the act of the complainant will fall section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 and the complaint is not maintainable herein as per the reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Anis Ahamad.

From the above mentioned reasons, we the Forum is of a common finding that the complaint is not maintainable herein. Hence the issue of maintainability is found in favour of the opposite party and the complaint dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of August, 2017

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/- SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

Appendix : Nil.

Forwarded by Order,

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT