KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

                    VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

  APPEAL  NO:596/2004

                                 JUDGMENT DATED:28..8..2008.

(Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF Kollam in OP.No:217/2001.)

PRESENT

SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN                          :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                          : MEMBER

1.K.Dayanandan, Proprietor,

  Sri.Durga Theatre, Chittumala,

  Ananda Vilasom, East Kallada.

2.K.Vanajakshi, W/o K.Dayanandan,

  Ananda Vilasom, East Kallada,

                                                                        : APPELLANTS

3.Ambili Sreekumar, D/o Dayanandan,

  Ananda Vilasom, East Kallada.

4.Mini Santhosh,

  D/o Dayanandan,

Ananda Vilasom, East Kallada

(By Adv: Sri.M.Nizamudeen)

          V.

1.The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board,

  Vydyuthi Bhavan. Pattom, TVPM.

                                                                      : RESPONDENTS

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

  Electrical Major Section, Ezhukone.

(By Adv: Sri.B.Sakthidaharan Nair)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appeal is preferred from the order dated:10..6..2003 of the CDRF, Kollam in OP:217/01.  The complaint therein was filed for getting the provisional bill for Rs.27,000/- quashed.  The opposite party/KSEB filed written version denying and disputing the case of deficiency of service.  The Forum below accepted the case of the opposite parties and thereby dismissed the complaint in OP:217/05.  Hence the present appeal.

2. We heard the counsel for the appellants/complainants and respondents/opposite parties.  The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He much relied on the oral testimonies of PW1 and 2 and disputed the correctness of D4 site mahazar and the oral version of DW1.  Thus, the appellants requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to quash Ext.P2 provisional bill dated:23..4..2001.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  He much relied on D4 site mahazar and the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 and requested for dismissal of the present appeal.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:-

1.                             Is there occurred any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing Ext.P2 provisional bill dated:23..4..2001 for Rs.27,000/-?

2.                             Whether the case of the opposite parties that there was mis use of the electricity connection given to the Cinema Theatre owned by the original consumer, K.Dayanandan can be accepted?

3.                             Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below?

4. Point Nos:1 to 3:-

Admittedly the present appellant’s predecessor, K.Dayanandan was the consumer under the opposite party/KSEB.  He was having a connection to his cinema theatre by name Durga Cinema theatre at Chittumala in Kollam district.  Admittedly the aforesaid consumer constructed a new auditorium about 15 meters away from his cinema theatre and the auditorium was functioning.  It is the case of the opposite party/KSEB that the consumer K.Dayanandan unauthorisedly drew electric line from the cinema theatre to the newly constructed auditorium and thereby exceeded the contracted load provided to the cinema theatre and thereby misused the electricity connection given to the original consumer K.Dayanandan.  Admittedly there was no electricity connection to the newly constructed auditorium.  It is also an admitted fact that the wiring completion report was not obtained because of the failure on the part of the local body to issue necessary ownership certificate.

5. The case of the opposite party/KSEB is that the anti power theft squad of the KSEB detected the misuse of electricity by the original complainant, Mr.K.Dayanandan and detection of misuse of electricity has been established by the opposite party by examining DW1 who prepared D4 site mahazar dated:21..4..2001.  Admittedly PW2 has affixed the signature to the said site mahazar.  Thus, the fact that the anti power theft squad of KSEB conducted inspection at the premises of the original complainant on 21..4..2001 has been established.   The case of PW2 Parameswaran Nair that he affixed his signature on D4 site mahazar without knowing the contents of the same cannot be believed for a moment.  There is nothing on record to doubt the testimony of DW1 or suspect the genuineness of D4 site mahazar. The Forum below has appreciated the evidence on record in its correct perspective and rightly upheld the case of misuse of electrical energy by the original complainant.  The Forum below has also considered the provisions of clause 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and rightly held that P2 provisional bill was issued in accordance with the provisions of clause 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.  We do not find any ground to interfere with the aforesaid findings entered into by the Forum below.  The case of the complainant that there was no misuse of electrical energy cannot be believed for a moment.  The present appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.  Hence we do so.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed.  The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                             M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VL.