BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 18th of February 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.201/2010
(Admitted on 17.07.2010)
Mr.K. Mohammed,
Aged about 77 years,
So. Ismail,
RA. Kumpana Majalu,
Farangipete, Bantwal Taluk. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Mrs.Leelavathi A. Bollar).
VERSUS
1. Executive Engineer,
MESCOM.
Puttur Division, Puttur.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer,
MESCOM, B.C. Road,
Bantwal. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri.Manoraj R).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant stated that, he is the consumer of electricity supplied by the Opposite Party since 11.09.1987 bearing R.R.No.F579. The Complainant is paying the electricity bills promptly issued by the Opposite Parties. The allegation of the Complainant is that, on 12.05.2009, staff and engineer of the Opposite Party’s vigilance squad raided the house of the Complainant and filed a false case and threatened the Complainant to pay bribe of Rs.20,000/-. Since the Complainant not paid the bribe to the staff of the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties vigilance squad has lodged a false FIR in crime No.98/2010 under Section 135, 138 of Electricity Act, 2003 and disconnected the electricity supplied to the house of the Complainant. From the above acts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant put to hardship and mental agony. On 17.04.2010, Complainant’s son enquired in the office of the Opposite Party, Opposite Party has given a letter dated 15.04.2010 to the Complainant’s son asking him to pay Rs.49,107/- as arrears and Rs.10,000/- as fine, in total Rs.59,107/- within three days from the receipt of the notice. The Complainant paid the entire amount as demanded by the Opposite Parties and stated that, the act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency and filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to repay the fine amount paid by the Complainant i.e., Rs.59,107/- along with interest at 10% p.a. and also claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version denied the deficiency and stated that, the Complainant had committed theft of energy by consuming power by bye-passing the energy meter, besides connecting additional load of 4.355 KW of power as against sanctioned load of 1.8 KW. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties taken action by lodging FIR and levying penalty and back billing as per law and there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Mr.K.Mohamed (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint but not answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C10 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.K.N.Mohandas (RW1), Assistant Executive Engineer of the Opposite Party No.2 filed counter affidavit. Opposite Party filed notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the Complainant is a consumer of electricity power supplied by the Opposite Party since 11.09.1987 by way of R.R. No.F579. It is also admitted that, on 12.05.2009 Opposite Parties’ vigilance squad raided the Complainant’s house and it was found that, Complainant had committed theft of energy by consuming power bye-passing the energy meter, besides connecting additional load of 4.355 KW power as against sanctioned load of 1.8KW. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties’ officials lodged a FIR against the Complainant in crime No.98/2010 under Section 135 and 138 of Electricity Act of 2003. It is also admitted that, on 17.04.2010, the Complainant’s son paid Rs.59,107/- as per Ex C1.
The allegation of the Complainant is that, the Opposite Parties raided the Complainant’s house and filed a false case and threatened the Complainant to pay bribe of Rs.20,000/- etc. etc but no material/cogent evidence produced before this Forum to show that the case filed by the Opposite Party is false, moreover, the Complainant not tendered for cross-examination nor he has answered the interrogatories served on him by the Opposite Parties. In the absence of any cogent/material evidence to show that the case filed by the Opposite Parties against the Complainant is false, we are declined to consider the complaint of the Complainant in this case. In other words, Complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. On the other hand, the Opposite Party sworn to the fact that, on 12.05.2010 the Opposite Party officials i.e., the vigilance squad of the Opposite Party raided the Complainant’s house and found that the Complainant had committed theft of energy by consuming power by bye-passing the energy meter, besides connecting additional load of 4.355 KW of power as against sanctioned load of 1.8 KW. The above said evidence filed by the Opposite Party is not controverted/ contradicted by the Complainant. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant is guilty of theft of energy and there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.
In view of the above observation, the complaint filed by the Complainant deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day of February 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr.K.Mohamed – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – : Original of the electricity bills (17 in numbers).
Ex C2 – 15.04.2005: Letter issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
Ex C3 & C4 – 17.05.2010: Receipt issued by the MESCOM.
Ex C5 - : Certified copy of the FIR in crime No.98/10 of MESCOM Vigilance police station along with complaint.
Ex C6 – 17.05.2010: Certified copy of the letter of objection written by the Complainant.
Ex C7 – 12.05.2010: Intimation letter issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
Ex C8 – 17.05.2010: Bill for Rs.1,190/-.
Ex C9 – 03.07.2010: Bill along with receipt.
Ex C10 – 04.08.2010: Bill along with receipt.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Sri.K.N.Mohandas, Assistant Executive Engineer of the Opposite Party No.2.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Dated:18.02.2011 PRESIDENT
