KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 229/2009 JUDGMENT DATED. 14-07-2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.The Secretary, KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. : APPELLANTS 2.The Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kanjikode, Palakkad. (By Adv:Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. Mr.M.Venugopal, S/o Marimuthu Naikar, 20/29 Syryachira Pudussery, Palakkad. : RESPONDENT (By Adv:Sri.Bimal.V.S) JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated:3/3/2009 in CC.15/07 the CDRF, Palakkad has directed the opposite parties to adjust Rs.11,973/- remitted by the complainant towards his future electricity charges with cost of Rs.1000/-. 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 29-06-2006 the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) headed by the Assistant Executive Engineer conducted a surprise inspection and found that the meter did not contain the seal of the Electricity Board and that there were some defects in the meter which were caused by the complainant. The site mehazar was prepared and that he was directed to pay the imposed penalty bill amount of Rs.11,973/- and on payment of the amount the connection that was disconnected earlier was restored. The further case of the complainant is that though he had filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS the same was disposed by the Deputy Chief Engineer without hearing him though he received a notice later, than the date fixed for hearing. Alleging deficiency on the side of the opposite parties the complainant prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.11,973/- paid by him with cost of the petition. 3. The opposite parties filed version contending that on inspection by the APTS on 29/6/2006 it was found that the meter seal was tampered, a gap on the side of the meter was seen made to insert foreign articles which would enable the stopping of the rotation of the meter. It was also noticed that there was tampering in the meter disk. The opposite parties submitted that a site mehazar was prepared wherein the complainant had signed and also that the supply was disconnected and the meter taken under custody. It was further submitted that though the complainant was given ample opportunity to be present for the hearing he was reluctant to appear and hence the Deputy Chief Engineer passed the order confirming the bill. Contending that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 4. The evidence consisted of the proof affidavit filed from both sides. Ext.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite parties. 5. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is illegal and unsustainable. It is his very case that the bill was issued on the ground that there was tampering of the energy meter and the same was approved by the complainant himself in the site mehazar. It is also his case that there was no necessity in sending the meter to the lab for further testing as the meter was tampered by the complainant himself to arrest the rotation of the meter disk. He has also submitted before us that the opposite party’s did not get sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence before the Forum and that order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and argued that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is further argued that the Forum below has appreciated the fact that the Deputy Chief Engineer of APTS has passed the order without hearing the complainant and that the observation of the Forum below that the opposite parties failed or rather did not take any steps to file a case against the complainant for theft of energy. It is his case that the opposite parties were convinced themselves that there was no theft of energy by the complainant. The further case of the respondent/complainant is that there is no evidence adduced by the opposite parties to prove that the meter was tampered enabling the complainant to stop the rotation of the meter disk. Thus the learned counsel argued for confirming the order of the Forum below. 7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the records we find that the parties have produced certain documents and filed proof affidavit. The Forum below passed the impugned order on the presumption that the meter was not sent for meter testing and also that no criminal case was taken by the opposite parties. However on a perusal of Ext.B1 we find that the complainant had affixed his signature in the site mahazar it is argued that the complainant did not do anything in the meter to stop the rotation of the meter disk. The appellants/opposite parties submitted before us that no sufficient opportunity was given to them to adduce evidence to support their case. The learned counsel further argued that the consumption after replacing defects in the meter was on a substantial increase and that the meter reading register would show that the old meter was tampered by the complainant and that the meter reading register if produced would substantiate the contention of the opposite parties/appellants. We find force in the said argument of the learned counsel and find that this is a fit case to be remanded to the Forum below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence if any in support of their rival contentions. In the result, the order of the Forum below in CC.15/07 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Forum below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence if they so desire. Parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 19-08-2010. Office of this commission is directed to send back the case records of the Forum below along with the copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal there is no order as to costs. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
