KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANATHPURAM APPEAL.No. 513/2005 JUDGMENT DATED : 24.02.2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom, : APPELLANTS Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Chithirapuram, Idukki. (By Adv.Sri.B.Sakthidaharan Nair) Vs E.A.Sujub, : RESPONDENT Edassarikudy House, Mammattikkanam.P.O., Pazhayaviduthykara, Rajakkadu Village, Idukki. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Idukki in the file of O.P.237/04. The appellant is the opposite party who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. In short, the brother of the complainant Jabbar who is a consumer of the opposite party. He was working abroad. The consumer number is3486/RYD under LTY tariff and the current charges were being paid without any default as per the slab and spot bills. On 14.07.2004 certain persons, introducing themselves as officers of the Electricity Board, came to the house and prepared a mahazar illegally. On 16.08.2004 a bill dated 09.08.2004 demanding Rs.26,421/- was given to the complainant with a direction to pay the same before 18.08.2004 failing which it was threatened that the supply would be disconnected. The complainant and other family members were unable to raise the funds and hence the supply was disconnected. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complaint has been filed for restoration of the power supply and cancellation of the bill dated 09.08.2004. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version. They contended that the building of the Consumer No.3486/RKD, is situated in survey No.180/1 of Rajakkad village and the service was registered with a connected load of 100 watts only. Building No.RP1/252A is a house roofed with tiles and the service connection was given to that building and not to building No.429 as stated in the petition. The consumer had been unauthorisedly using electricity in the premises of House No.429 where there is no electric connection until it was detected by the APTs. It was the Assistant Engineer of the Anti-power Theft Squad,Regional Unit, Vazhathoppu, Idukki, who inspected the premises in the wake of persistent complaints received from the people of the locality of the consumer and when the premises were inspected, a load of 3KW had been unauthorisedly extended to a house No.RPVI/429/ROP where there is no electric connection and situated 75 minitues away from the premises o the complainant. The site mahazar was prepared in front of a witness and a copy of it was received by the wife of Jabbar after reading and signing the mahazar. Being a domestic consumer, he would have been billed under tariff I (a). But the consumer has been billed under the agriculture tariff LTV by mistake from 2/2001 and since it is a tariff of lower rate than I (a) tariff, the short of current charges from 2/2001 to 8/2004 is also billed. So there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complainant examined as PW1 and marked four documents marked as Ext.P1 to P4. There was no either oral documentary evidence adduced from the part of the opposite party. The Forum below raised two issues there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to? The Forum below taken a view that the complainants case is that there were regular remitting the charges after the bills were issued by the Forum and the opposite parties also that though the consumer was liable to be perform 1(a) actually the bill was only underLTV by mistake from 2/01. The difference of that amount also has been claimed in Ext.P4 to the period of 04.02.01 for which the complainant has no serious objection to remit. So Ext.P4 bill is liable to be cancelled to the extend of demand to the tune of Rs.27,000/-. In the result, Ext.P1 bill is cancelled to the extend of the demand of penalty of Rs.27,000/-. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh bill for Rs.421/- and to restore supply to the premises within 7 days. The consumer will not be charged for the period from the date of disconnection of the power supply till the restoration. This impugned order passed by the Forum. The counsel for the appellant argued on the ground of the appeal memorandum that the Forum below ought to have been found that the consumer has not only connected unauthorized additional load of 3kw but also unauthorisedly extended the connection to house bearing No.429 where there is no electric connection and situated 75 mts away from the premises of the consumer. The counsel submitted that the Forum below gone wrong in finding the opposite parties contention that the consumer had misused the energy by extending of the supply stands disproved and as such the penal bill.Ext.P4 demanding Rs.27,421/- as penalty cannot be sustained. The counsel submitted that the Forum below passed the impugned order without appreciating the evidence and not accordance with the provisions of the law and evidence. This commission heard in detail and perused the available records from the case bundle. It seen that the complainant who has taken unauthorized connection in this case. Ext.B1 mahasar is a very important evidence to prove that the complainant who taken unauthorized function. It is liable to pay compensation. Energy charge have the energy will be illegal, consumer is brother of Jabar is the only real consumer of the opposite parties, other is not coming under the purview of the Consumer number of his brother. His wife and father of the Jabar (consumer) who already put the signature in the site mahazar prepared by the opposite parties. There is no doubt that the complainant who availed electrical energy illegally. It is coming under the head of the unauthorized connection. But this commission is seeing that the critical norms adopted by the appellant and opposite party is not legal. They have no explanation about the assessment of 3KW electrical energy assessed by them. In other words this is nothing but a misuse of energy and only the Rule. 42 (d) of the supply code is applicable. In this case according to the 42(d) supply code the two terms of the tariff energy consumed is permissible. This commission find that the issue of Ext.P4 bill is illegal and in other words there is another mistake commited by the appellant/opposite party. They billed under the agricultural tariff LTV by mistake only from 2/01. Their current charge 2/2001 to 8/2004 is also billed. Anyway the act of the appellant/opposite party is also not legally sustainable. The officials of the appellant KSEB must be followed some norms and principles and the provisions of the Electricity act for each and every acts done by them. Exts.P4 bill is part and parcel of the unfair trade practice. Ext.P4 bill not contained even the name of the consumer. Each and every bill must be carried all the details including the name and address of the consumer etc as per the electricity Act. But in this case this commission is seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of the law and evidence. It is not legally sustainable. We find that it some reasons to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Forum below. In the result, this appeal is allowed and directed the opposite parties to cancel Ext.P4 bill and direct to issue fresh bill strictly according to the provisions of 42(d) of the Supply code. Till issue of fresh bills the appellant/opposite parties is restrained to take any further steps against the complainant in this subject matter. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective cost. The points are answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Kb. | 
