KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 202/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 28.7.10 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, : APPELLANTS K.S.E.B., Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Ayarkunnam. Reconstituted as Asst.Exe.Engineer, Electrical Sub division, Mannarcadu, Kottayam. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. Jacob Mathew, : RESPONDENT Madathil Puthen Purayil, Amayannoor.P.O., Kottayam. (By Adv.Philip M Prasad) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 31.12.2002 in OP.74/95 the CDRF, Kottayam has directed the opposite parties to cancel Ext.A5 bill and to pay cost of Rs.750/- to the petitioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and that on 19.1.95 he was served with a bill dated 18.1.95 for a sum of Rs.45279/- by the 2nd opposite party. The reason stated was that he had not installed capacitor and it was found out during the inspection of the Electrical Inspector during last week of October and that one phase of the meter was not recording consumption. It is his case that on 2.1.95 the Sub Engineer of the opposite parties had taken reading and he did not say anything about such matters. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill for Rs.45279/- and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of the proceedings. 3. The opposite parties filed joint version wherein it was contended that the Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB conducted a surprise inspection on 6.1.95 in the premises of the complainant and found that one phase of the energy meter was not recording and it was showing only 2/3 of the actual consumption made by the complainant. It was also noticed that the absence of power capacitors required for the connection was not fitted by the consumer and hence 20% extra was assessed by the opposite parties for the last 6 months and hence the bill for Rs.45279/- was issued. Contending that the complainant was liable to pay the amount, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The Forum below dismissed the complaint on 13.11.98 and it was taken up in Appeal by the complainant as Appeal No.1150/99 before this State Commission. This Commission had remanded the matter to the Forum giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective pleadings and the Forum below reopened the case and in the Forum below the petitioner had filed his affidavit; Exts A1 to A11 and on the side of opposite parties Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. It is based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had gone wrong in cancelling Ext.A5 bill for Rs.45279/- as it is his case that Forum below ought to have found that the bill was issued consequent to the inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the opposite parties and it was found that the meter was not working properly and that there was no installation of required capacitors. It is his very case that a site mahasar was prepared and it was based on the said site mahasar that the bill was issued and hence the complainant was liable to pay the said amount. The learned counsel advanced the further contention that the Forum below ought to have dismissed the complaint. 6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and argued before us that the Forum below had gone into every aspect of the case in the correct perspective. It is also argued by him that the opposite parties had issued the bill without proper evidence and that though this Commission had given opportunity to the opposite parties to prove the case by examining the author or atleast a witness to the site mahasar, the opposite parties deliberately avoided the same would establish the case of the complainant that there was no such discrepancies in the premises of the complainant. Thus he submitted before us that the appeal is also liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the complainant/respondent. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and also perusing the records produced, we find that once this matter was heard by this Commission and the same was remanded to the Forum below giving opportunity to the opposite parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. In the order of this Commission it is stated “ It was necessary to get it proved by examining the author or atleast a witness to the same particularly when the person against whom the mahasar is sought to be relied on maintains that he was not aware of such visit or preparation of the mahasar”. The short question that comes before us is whether the opposite parties had proved the mahazar by examining the author or the witness in the preparation of the site mahasar. On a perusal of the order it is observed that one Scariah Jacob had been shown as a witness. The opposite parties did not take any effective steps to get the mahazar proved properly as directed by this Commission. In the said circumstances we are of the view that the opposite parties are not entitled to realize the amount of Rs.45279/- based on the mahasar and the subsequent contentions raised by them. We find that the order of the Forum below can be justified in all aspects. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order of the Forum below dated 31.12.2002 in OP.74/95 is confirmed. In the nature and circumstance of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER ps | 
