KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.1044/04 JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.09 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. The Secretary, KSEB, Pattom, Trivandrum. 2. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, -- APPELLANTS KSEB, Electrical Major Section, Thengana, Kottayam. (By Adv. B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. K.J.Kurian, Kurisingal Parambil, Perunne P.O, Changanasserry, Rani Rubber Factory, -- RESPONDENT Industrial Estate, Changanacherry. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 16.8.04 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.390/03. The complaint therein was filed to get A1 penal bill dated 10.12.03 for Rs.49,372/- cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A1 bill and A2 notice dated 11.12.03. The opposite party entered appearance and contended that the A1 bill was issued based on the inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB. The opposite parties also relied on B2 mahazar and B3 report submitted by the Asst. Engineer of Anti Theft Squad of KSEB. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing A1 bill for Rs.49372/-. 2. Before the Forum below A1 and A2, B1 and B2 documents were marked on the side of the parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint and thereby cancelled the impugned bill dated 10.12.03 for Rs.49372/-. The opposite parties are also directed to pay cost of Rs.750/-to the complainant. Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties. 3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on B2 copy of the Mahazar and B3 copy of the report submitted by the Asst. Engineer of APTS and argued for the position that there was short assessment of the energy consumed by the complainant. Thus, requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the case of the appellants/opposite parties that there was short assessment of the consumption of energy can be up-held? 2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A1 bill dated 10.1203 for Rs.49,372/-? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below? 5. POINTS 1 TO 3:- There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer under the KSEB. It is the case of the opposite parties that the Asst. Engineer of the Anti Power Theft Squad conducted an inspection of the premises of the complainant on 20.11.02 and prepared B2 mahazar. But the complainant totally denied the said case of the opposite parties. It is the definite case of the complainant that no such inspection was conducted and no mahazar was prepared and that A1 bill has been issued without any basis and that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount covered by A1 bill. The opposite parties have not proved B2 mahazar and B3 report of the APTS. As per B2, the said mahazar was prepared by the Asst.Engineer, Anti Power theft Squad. But the person who prepared the mahazar and signed the same has not been examined this case. He has not filed any affidavit in support of the B2 mahazar. B3 report is also prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad. But B3 report has not been proved by the person who prepared the same. It is pertinent to note at this juncture, that the complainant/consumer denied the inspection and preparation of B2 mahazar. In such a situation it was the duty of the opposite parties to prove B2 Mahazar and B3 report of the Anti Power Theft Squad. Thus, in effect there is nothing on record to show that there was short assessment of the power which has been consumed by the complainant. There is also nothing on record to substantiate the case of the opposite parties that one phase of the power meter was not recording consumption of energy. In the absence of any such material it is not possible for anybody to accept the case of the opposite parties. The Forum below has rightly dis-believed the case of the opposite parties. More over, the A1bill has been issued for short assessment of consumption for a period of 6 months. There is nothing on record to show that there was such short assessment of consumption for a period of 6 months. Thus in all respects, the opposite parties miserably failed in establishing their case. They failed to substantiate their case regarding issuance of A1 bill dated10.12.03 for Rs.49,372/-. It is pertinent to note at this juncture, that the opposite parties have not produced the meter reading register. It would give an indication that the quantity of electrical energy consumed by the complainant/consumer during the previous period and also the consumption after rectifying the mistake in the power meter. But, no such procedure or methord has been adopted by the opposite parties. Thus, in all respects the opposite parties cannot be justified in issuing A1 bill for Rs.49,372/-. The Forum below has rightly cancelled the impugned bill dated 10.12.03 for Rs.49,372/-. We do not find any legally sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the forum below. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 16.8.04 passed by CDRF Kottayam in OP.No.390/03 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER | 
