KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.460/04 JUDGMENT DATED : 23/7/08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom, Trivandrum. : APPELLANTS 2. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, Electrical Section, Kanjirapally (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs Dr.Manikanta Das, Athira Nursing Home, : RESPONDENT Mukkoottuthara, Erumerly, Kottayam. JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The opposite parties in OP 263/03 of CDRF, Kottayam are under orders to cancel the Ext.A1 demand notice for Rs.85029/- and to pay Rs.750/- as costs. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he was running a Nursing Home at Mukkoottuthara, Erumeli as a self employment venture and that he had purchased the building from one Johnykutty on 9/5/02 and was paying the electricity charges correctly. On 25/9/03 a demand notice dated 17/9/03 for Rs.85,029/- was served on him and it is his case that he is not liable to pay the said amount as he had remitted all the charges due to the opposite parties. He has also alleged that no details of the demand were given in the notice and alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill issued on 17/9/03 for Rs.85,029/- with costs and not to disconnect the supply. 3. The opposite parties filed their version contending that there were two connections in the premises of the complainant which were registered in the name of P.C.Kuriakose. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant had not taken any steps to change the registration of the connection in his name. On 30/8/03 by 1.30 P.M. Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) conducted a surprise inspection in the Nursing Home and found out theft of electrical energy. A site mahazar was also prepared wherein it was also stated that the seals of the meter were broken at one side and tampered at the other side. The meter was opened for inspection and the pivotal screw of the disc was seen loosened as a result the meter was not running freely. It was also contended that both the meters were connected through a change over switch by which the connection for domestic purpose was used for other purpose having higher tariff. Hence he was issued a bill under LT VII A tariff for 6 months at thrice the rate which was only legal and sustainable. Raising the above contentions the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 4. The evidence consisted of the affidavit filed by the complainant, the 2nd opposite party, Exts.A1 and A2 and B1 to B3. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the contentions taken in the version as well as the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is his specific case that the bill was issued consequent to the detection of misuse of energy. It is his further case that the Forum below has not appreciated the mahazar which was produced as Ext.B3. He has also submitted before us that the Forum ought to have found that there was sufficient material produced by the opposite parties to discard the contentions of the complainant and hence prayed for allowing the appeal thereby setting aside the order dated 12/5/04 of the Forum below. 6. On a perusal of the records obtained from the Forum below and on hearing the learned counsel for the appellants we find that the opposite parties/appellants have produced the site mahazar which is marked as Ext.B3. However it is also noted that nobody was examined on the side of the opposite parties to prove the mahazar though the affidavit of the 2nd opposite party was filed along with the documents, which are marked as Ext. B1 to B3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the Forum has not given opportunity to the opposite parties to adduce evidence. The site mahazar was prepared by one Siju Raj of the APTS who is Asst. Engineer. However it is also noted that Sri.Manikanta Das who is said to be the owner of the Nursing Home has also signed the mahazar. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd opposite party it is not mentioned that he was present at the time of inspection by the APTS of the opposite parties. The Forum has found that the site mahazar cannot be accepted due to the fact that the person who had prepared the mahazar has not been examined before the Forum. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted before us that they were not given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in the matter. In the circumstance we find that this is a fit case to be remitted to the lower Forum for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides to substantiate their rival contentions. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 12/5/04 in OP 263/03 of CDRF, Kottayam and the matter is remitted back to the Forum below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the parties concerned for adducing evidence and in accordance with law. In the nature and circumstance of the case t there is no order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 4/9/08. The lower Forum’s records may also be transmitted to the Forum along with the copy of this order. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER PK.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
