KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.554/05 JUDGMENT DATED 6.8.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. KSE Board Reptd by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. -- APPELLANTS 2. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, KSEB, Ponkunnam. 3. The Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Ponkunnam. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. 1. Dominic Joseph, Kuruvinakunnel, Madukkakunnu Estate Madukkakunnu.P.O, Kottayam. -- RESPONDENTS 2. Michal Dominic Sidharth, Kuruvinakunnel, Madukkakunnu Estate Madukkakunnu.P.O, Kottayam. (By Adv.Joseph Markos & Ors.) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in the file of OP.No.548/01 dated 15th April 2005. The appellants are the opposite parties who prefer this appeal from the above impugned order. The respondents are the complainants respectively. This appeal prefers under the order directed the opposite parties to set aside Ext.A3 bill for Rs.122679/- and also directed that they shall not be disconnected the electric connection and also direct to pay compensation of Rs.750/- to the complainants and it can be adjusted in future bill or paid direct. 2. The complainants alleged that the electric connection was provided by the opposite parties with Con.No.3770. They have challenged the invoice dated 3.10.01 for Rs.122679/- issued by the opposite parties that issuing to the invoice was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint for the reliefs. 3. The opposite parties contended in the written version that the petitioner had already filed an appeal under Rule 48 (a) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy that petition is pending. An inspection was conducted by the APTS unit Ernakulam in the premises of the petitioner on 27.9.01 in the presence of Estate Supervisor of the complainant K.J.Thomas. The inspection party prepared a site mahazer and above such supervisor and second petitioner signed. As per the mahazer, it was found that building was used as a guest house for tourist, even though, their tariff is domestic. In other words, it was used for the commercial purposes for running a guest house. It is nothing but a misuse of energy which can be billed at 3 times rightly applicable to the respective tariff for the previous 3 months from the date of the detection of house only there are convincing reason for adopting a different period under clause 43 (d) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy. The meter was tested and all phases by the presence of the second petitioner and estate supervisor and they were made aware of the fact that 2 phases of the meter were not working which means that only 1/3 of the consumption was being. Suppose the petitioners have any dispute regarding the finding of the opposite parties, they could have very well invoked Section 26 (6 ) of the Indian Electricity Act. They denied the entire allegations. Hence they prayed for dismissed the complaint. 4. Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by the first petitioner, second opposite party and affidavit of the witness of the opposite parties, Ext.A1 to A19 were marked for the complainant and Ext.B1 marked for the opposite parties. After considering all facts and circumstances of the case and heard both sides, the Forum below allowed the complaint. This appeal prefers from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. 5. On this day, this appeal came before this Commission, counsels for both sides are present and the counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the finding of the Forum below is illegal and irregular and it is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the respondent/complainants submitted that the procedure taken by the appellant/opposite parties are irregular and there is no evidence adduced by them to corroborate their defense that the complaint used the outhouse as guest house for tourist accommodation. He submitted that the second day of the spot detection of the alleged meter defects the appellant/opposite parties removed the meter without the consent of the complainant and taken away from the premises, the complainant did not given any opportunity to take step or testing the meter by an independent expert. But the counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the mahazer prepared by the statutory authority even though he is a technical person. He is more and enough to prove that the outhouse was used as a guest house and the phases of the meter was not functioning properly and due to this reason all the energy consumption of the phases did not recorded in the meter properly. In the circumstance, the impugned bill issued by the appellant/opposite party is purely legal and accordance with low. He prayed for set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow this appeal. But the counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the order passed by the Forum below is strictly accordance with the provisions of law and evidence and it is legally sustainable. This Commission heard both sides and perused the entire evidence. We cannot understand how the inspection team headed by the Asst.Engineer of the KSEB, a technically qualified person who reached in conclusion that if the 2 phases of the meter is not functioning then the consumption of the electrical energy did not recorded in the 3 phase of a single meter. It is a domestic 3 phase connection with a single meter. The total consumption of 3 phases is normally recording in the same single 3 phase meter in total. If the opposite parties are having a strong case that it is a misuse of electric energy. It is nothing but tampering the meter not a misuse of energy. There is no such evidence or such case for the appellant/opposite parties and there is no single piece of evidence adduced by the opposite parties to support their case that the complainants used the out house and guest house for tourists. The appellant/opposite party is having a case that the complainants already misused the tariff of domestic connection as a commercial connection. A mere statement in the mahazer is not sufficient to reach in a conclusion that they misused the energy. First of all, the Kerala State Electricity Board is not providing any training to their officers for preparing a statutory mahazer and occurrence report etc. They are only technically qualified persons. They are not legally trained for comply the legal formalities and taking technical steps to test the meter phases etc. May be taken the case of the appellants is correct or not? But in Ernakulam area there are so many houses are utilizing as home stay centers for foreign tourist with the assistance of the Kerala State Tourism Department. In the district of Trichur, so many houses are providing for accommodation to the students for entrance coaching. But, in the eye of law the legal evidence is necessary for legally settle a dispute. We cannot pass any order on the basis of the presumption and assumption. It is a fact finding body the result of this type of cases, the Kerala State Electricity Board is spending huge amount from their total tariff revenue. The most shocking aspect is that every year in our state we are suffering the waste of power energy of 6 tones. It is accumulating the causes of global warming especially a developing country like India. In Kerala, it is highly necessary to declare a day in every week as a “power holiday” to the Government Offices and other Government undertakings, large scale industries etc. Due to the holiday given to the Central Government Officers in every state at least 1 tone energy waste is approximately saving in every months. It is highly necessary to preserve the energy for the coming generations. It is highly necessary to take appropriate and harden steps to prevent the waste of the electric energy. By providing incentive or tariff reductions to the consumers and it also can be introduced for the preventor of power energy. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. The points of the appeal answered accordingly. The Registrar of this Commission is direct to forward the copy of the Judgment to the Secretary, KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram for the necessary and appropriate action. M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER s/L | 
