By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is running a Metal Crusher Unit having license under Kerala Minor Mineral concession Rules 1967. The sanction for running a crusher was obtained from concerned authorities but it was not in a running condition in regular basis. The electric connection to this industry was given complying all the formalities. Time and again inspection were carried out by the respective officials. The supply of energy to the concern was disconnected for not enclosing the meter equipments in a metallic enclosure on 13.3.2008 and later it was reconnected on 18.3.2008. The Complainant was informed of an inspection on 26.5.2008 and followed by that a provisional bill No. AN No.070502 for a sum of Rs.2,72,827/- was given. The circumstances for the issuance of such a bill of huge amount was not known to the Complainant. It is also informed to the Complainant that the site was inspected and lead seal of the metallic box of the metering equipment was later alleged as tampered and Y and B phases were found not functioned. The provisional bill issued to the concern was made absolutely without hearing the Complainant. The alleged inspection of the 2^nd Opposite Party and others were not informed to the Complainant and more over there was no justification in the penal bill issued to the Complainant. There may be an order directing that :-

1. The bills issued AN No.070502 and AA 74880 demanded Rs.2,72,829/- is to be not liable to be paid.

2. To direct the Opposite Party to reconnect the service to the consumer No.6241 of Vellamunda award cost to the complainant along with Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony inconvenience.

2. The Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version filed is as follows:- The Anti Power Theft Squad detected the illegal consumption of energy by the Complainant to the crusher unit. The consumer committed the theft of electricity. The allegation of the Complainant as such the unit is not in a regularly running stage is false. The consumption No.6241 is registered in the name of the Complainant under LT4 tariff. When the Complainant failed to obey the directions of the officials to enclose the meter equipments in a metallic enclosure, the supply was detached and later on satisfaction of the conditions pulling the meter equipments in the metallic enclosure the supply was reconnected. The Complainant was given a penal bill of Rs.2,72,827/- on finding irregularities in the consumption of energy. The inspection in the premises was carried out on 26.5.2008 by a team of officials headed by the Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad. The mahazar was prepared and the irregularities found in inspection were:-

(a) Tampering of led seal on the metallic box of the metering circuit.

(b) Illegal abstraction of energy by disconnecting the C.T coils in Y and B phases.

3. The mahazar was also witnessed by the parties present. The metering equipments were sealed. On detection of irregularities provisional bill was issued to the consumer. The Complainant preferred a petition to set aside the provisional bill but on verification finding that the request of the consumer was not reasonable and genuine, the petition was rejected and the provisional bill issued made absolute. The inspection to the site was done surprisingly to detect the irregularities in the consumption of energy. For which prior notice is not necessary. The Assessing Officer reached to a conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity was effected and the bill issued taking into re assessment calculating the consumption of energy and sum of Rs.2,72,827/- was demanded issuing the bill to the Complainant. The complainant itself is not based on reason there is no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In such a circumstances the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the Opposite Party.

4. Points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of Exts. A1 to A11 series, Exts.B1 to B10, Exts.C1 to C2 and MO1 series. The Complainant and Opposite Parties filed proof affidavit. The oral testimony of Complainant and 2^nd Opposite Party are also taken into consideration.

6. The Complainant's case is that the stone crusher unit run by the Complainant is having electric connection in Vellamunda with consumer No.6241. The Complainant was demanded to pay Rs.2,72,829/- alleging theft of electricity. According to the Complainant the amount demanded in the way of penalisation is unreasonable and against justice. The metering equipments of the consumer number is having 3 CT coils. According to the Opposite Parties the C.T coils were tampered by the Complainant interrupting the recording of energy which was actually consumed. The inspection to the crusher unit was carried out by the Opposite Party on 26.5.2008. The bill dated 27.5.2008 in the consumer No.6241 was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant has no case that the C.T. Coils in the metering equipments were faulty. How ever the C.T. Coils which were in use of the metering equipments were later replaced by fresh C.T. Coils. The attested photocopy of the meter reading register records the consumption of energy and on verification of the same it is seen that the consumption of electricity after installation of the fresh C.T. Coil is considerably higher than the consumption of energy prior to the inspection period which was in 5/2008. According to the Opposite Party the Y and B terminals of the C.T. Coil were tampered which was the reason for cutting short the consumption of energy. Exts.C1 and C2 are the Commission Report. The inspection of the Commissioner in the crusher unit was after inspection and the preparation of site mahazar by the Opposite Party. The C.T. Coils which were used by the Complainant in the metering equipments were sent for the detail analytical report of the Electrical Inspector. The test result also shows that the C.T. Coils are faulty which means the tolerable limits of error found to be exceeding in the C.T. Coils. According to this report if one of the C.T. Coil is not working out of the third the recording of energy will be cut short into 1/3. Similarly recording of energy will be proportionately reduced if the coils are defective and not working. The Complainant has no such case that the C.T. Coils which was in the metering equipments at the time of inspection was faulty. The consumption pattern of energy in the consumer No.6241 strengthen the contentions of the Opposite Parties from 11/07 to 05/08 the period of inspection. The consumption of energy was considerably higher in quantity after changing C.T coils during the period from 9/08 to 4/09. There is hike in the consumption of energy which is very clear from Exts.B5 and B6. An another contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party were inimical terms with the Complainant which lead to the issuance of the bill of huge amount in the way of penalization but it is not supported by any evidence. The Opposite Party demanded the amount from the complainant calculating the consumption basing on the connected load for a period of 313 days. The bill issued for an amount reassessing for the period of one year plus duty cannot be interfered. The allegation of energy theft of the Complainant is found to be reasonable on verification of the documents. The surprise visit of the Anti Power Theft Squad to the unit of the Complainant was effected and mahazar was also prepared. Witness present at the time of inspection is also examined as a witness in this case. Exts.C1 the report of the Commissioner specifies that the metering equipments were faulty. The inspection of the Commissioner was on 10.07.2008 that means there was no tampering after the installation of the new C.T's wherein the recording of energy was actual and properly done uninterrupted. The allegation of the theft was before the replacing of the C.T coils. In the above circumstances, we are in the opinion that the theft of energy alleged by the Opposite Party remains reasonable.

In the result, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complaint is dismissed, no order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st May 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. George Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1 Antony. T.F. A.E., I.T. Unit, Vytila.

OPW2. Sunil Kumar. P. C 1767, Pulpally Police Station.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Notice.

A2. Demand Notice. dt:27.05.2008.

A3. Notice. dt:26.05.2008.

A4. Copy of Application. dt:02.06.2008.

A5. Copy of Site Mahazar. dt:26.05.2008.

A6. Copy of Site Mahazar. dt:26.05.2008.

A7. Proceedings dt:10.06.2008.

A7(a) Demand Notice cum disconnection notice. dt:10.06.2008.

A8 series (6 in numbers) Demand Notice cum disconnection notice. dt:16.01.2008.

A9. Copy of Site Mahazar. dt:10.07.2008.

A10. Copy of Site Mahazar. dt:06.09.2008.

A11 series. Photo – 6, CD- 1, Bill-1.

C1. Commission Report. dt:21.07.2008.

C2. Test Report.

MO1 series (3 in numbers). C.T. Coils

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Notice.

B2 series (6 in numbers) Photos.

B3. C D.

B4. Copy of Letter.

B5. Copy of Meter Reading Register (Page No.53).

B6. Consumption Pattern of Con. No.6241.

B7. Connection Diagram of A 100/A Current Transformer.

B8. Current circuit of A CT Operated Energy Meter.

B9. Theft of Energy by Disconnecting R Phase CT Secondary Wire to Meter.

B10. Theft of Energy by Disconnecting Secondary Wire of R and Y Phase CT's.