DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of April 2011
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 07/07/2010
(C.C.No.89/2010)
M.Rajan,
S/o.Mayandi,
Kalappura House,
Kakkathode,
Thenari Post,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.Rajesh.M)
V/s
1. K.S.E.B
(Rep.by Secretary)
Vidhyuth Bhavan, Pattom
Thiruvannathapuram
(By Adv.M.S.Skaria)
2. Asst.Executive Engineer
K.S.E.B.
Elappully Electrical Section,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.M.S.Skaria)
3. Sub Engineer,
K.S.E.B. Electrical Section,
Elappully, Palakkad. - Opposite parties
(By Adv.M.S.Skaria)
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT
Complainant is the consumer of opposite parties vide Consumer No.8374 for agricultural electricity connection. The connection is used for agricultural purpose only. The agricultural property consists of coconut and paddy field. Complainant has filed an application dated 1/3/2010 to the Tahsildar seeking permission for construction of a pond for growing fish. Application is under process. Complainant has dig a chal in his property for irrigating paddy field situated nearby. While doing so, some river sand was seen in the chal and the same was taken and put in the side of the chal. On 15/3/10, the Sub Engineer of the K.S.E.B. inspected the site. Alleging misuse of electricity connection, opposite party disconnected the supply. Complainant asked to sign on a blank paper. Subsequently a penal bill was issued to the complainant. Complainant alleges that bill is prepared in such a fashion that the misuse is carried out through out the period from May 2009 to March 2010. Complainant has raised objection against the penal bill, but without hearing opposite party has issued a final bill for the same amount. Complaint is challenging the bill issued to the complainant. Complainant also prays compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss suffered by the complainant and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony.
Opposite parties filed version contending the following :
According to opposite parties, the electricity connection provided to the complainant is exclusively for watering agricultural crops. Moreover, complainant comes under the exempted category of agricultural electricity consumer. The electricity charges are paid by the Krishi Bhavan. On 15/3/2010, opposite parties carried out a surprise inspection at the complainant’s premises. Illegal sand mining was seen carried out in the premises using this free electricity connection. A huge pit was seen dig inside the property from which soil containing sand was excavated. The soil was being washed with water from the agricultural pump for seperating sand from soil. A huge stock pile of sand so washed was kept ready for sale. Site mahazar was prepared as per rules and photographs were also taken. Opposite parties denies the say of the complainant that 10 days before 15/3/2010 (date of inspection) opposite parties has carried out another inspection. Opposite party further contented that since the complainant has not exhausted the remedies under the Electricity Act complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The evidence led by the complainant consists of the chief affidavit. Ext.A1 & A2 and testimony of PW1. Opposite party filed chief affidavit and Ext.B1 & B2 were marked.
Issue that arise for our consideration are
- Whether the bill dated 23/6/10 issued by the opposite parties is legal ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
- If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?
Issue 1 & 2
Complainant is challenging the penal bill dated 23/6/2010 issued by opposite parties alleging misuse of tariff. According to the complainant no such misuse has taken place. Opposite party on the other hand contented that misuse was detected on the surprise inspection conducted by the opposite parties. Sand silting operations were done using the agricultural electricity connection. Hence bill issued is legal.
Heard both parties and gone through the entire evidence on record.
Complainant has filed a complaint prior to the institution of the present one which was dismissed by the Forum noting that it was based upon a provisional bill. A commission taken in that complaint is marked as Ext.A2.
The relevant portion of Ext.B1, the site mahazar reads as follows:
“Cu tamt«mÀ sjÍn \n¶pw GItZiw 100 aoÁÀ AIsebmbn Cu tamt«mÀ D]tbmKn¨v shÅaSn¨v aW IgpIn sImncn¡p¶p”
The allegation of the complainant is that the site mahazar was not prepared in his presence and he was compelled to sign on a plain paper. Ext.B1 reveals that the said allegation is not true. At the end of the mahazar complainant has written “hmbn¨p t_m[ys¸«p”and has put his signature. Ext.B1, being a document prepared as part of the official duty cannot be disregarded in the absence of any cogent evidence to controvert the same.
Further, complainant has himself admitted that he has dug a chal for irrigating water through his coconut field to the paddy field situated nearby. It is also stated that the purpose of digging such a chal is to water both coconut and paddy without any additional usage of electricity.
On going through the sketch of the Ext.A2 commission report, there is no such chal in the said coconut field. Commissioner has shown an hose fitted along the entire so called coconut field till the wet land. So the say of the complainant turn out be a false one. The relevant portion of the commission report which also raises serious doubt as to the genuiness of the present complaint is as follows:
The silting operations alleged to be carried out is on the south western portion of the complainant’s property. The said area seemed recently cleared and it seemed relatively wet when compared to other parts of the property. I could not find any silting operations carried on at the time of my visit but I could find a small heap of soil mixed with mud just adjacent to the canal leading to the complainant.
Commissioner has also reported that there is no other source to irrigate the paddy field of the complainant except for the subimmersible pump above mentioned.
So its born out from the report that silting operations carried on the premises of the complainant is using the agricultural electricity connection. Hence, we hold the view that bill issued by the opposite party’s is legal and proper.
In the result complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of April 2011
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Final Bill No.118588 dt.23/6/2010
Ext.A2 – Copy of site map
Complainant cross examined
PW1 - M.Rajan
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Copy of site mahazar prepared by Sri.K.Madhavan, Sub Engineer
KSEB, Elappully
Ext.B2 – Photographs of the site
Cost Allowed
No cost Allowed
