KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 84/2007

JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                             : MEMBER

Assistant Engineer,                                  : APPELLANT

K.S.E.B.,

Giri Nagar, Electrical Section,

Ernakulam, Cochin.

(By Adv. S.Balachandran)

       vs.

Denny P.D. Proprietor,

Net Travels,                                                 : RESPONDENT

H.B.2. Panampally Nagar,

Cochin 36.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in OP233/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The electric energy bill issued  by the appellant  for a sum of Rs.80890/- stands cancelled.  It is the case of the complainant that he is running a travel agency in the particular place  and was regularly remitting the electricity charges.  According to him on 17.5.06 the opposite party inspected the premises and disconnected the electrical connection and served the bill.  According to him the allegation of theft of electricity is false.

          2. The opposite parties filed version pointing out that on 17.5.06 on an inspection by the APTS it was found that there was tampering of the meter and seals as stated in the mahasar which was subsequently received by the complainant on the same day.  According to them it was a clear case of theft of electrical energy.

          3. The evidence adduced consisted of testimony of PW1, DWs 1 to 3; Exts.A1 to A7 and B1 to B3.

          4. Respondent/complainant was called absent.

          5. We find that the opposite parties has examined DW3 the Assistant Executive Engineer of the APTS who prepared the mahasar.  It is also mentioned that the staff of the complainant who was present refused to sign in the mahasar.

          6. The Forum has disbelieved the version of the opposite parties on the ground the mahasar is not signed by the complainant or any other person.  We find that the above reasoning can not be up held.  It would not be possible to compel anybody to sign in the mahasar.  In the mahasar the name of the particular staff Ranju  refused to sign is also mentioned.  DW2 is a Sub Engineer who has also witnessed the inspection by the APTS and is a  witness to Ext.B1 site mahasar. In the circumstances we find that the order of the Forum can not be sustained.  The same is set aside.  The appeal is allowed.  All the same the complainant/respondent is permitted to remit the amount in 8 installments if not already paid.

          The office will forward the LCR to the Forum.

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                     : MEMBER