KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 583/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 25.10.08 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. Secretary, K.S.E.B., Thiruvananthpauram. : APPELLANTS 2. Asst.Executive Engineer, E.M.S., KSEB, Kalpathy, Palakkad. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. Manager, Bull Station, : RESPONDENT Dhoni Farm, Dhoni.P.O., Palakkad. (By Adv.K.R.Nandakumar) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Palakkad in the file of OP.No.164/99 dated 18.4.01. The appellants are the opposite parties in the OP respectively. The brief of the case is that the complainant in this case is the Manager, Bull Station, Dhoni Farm, Palakkad. This unit is functioning under the Government of Kerala and engaged in production of bull semen used for artificial insemination of cows and the unit was commissioned in the year 1983 with Swiss collaboration. The vigilence wing of the KSEB known as Anti Power Theft Squad made a surprise inspection in the complainants farm and noted some irregularities in the functioning of the meter. It was detected that the meter was not registering the actual consumption of electricity. The opposite parties had made fresh assessments and issued bills to the complainant firm for Rs.2,46,671.55 in the year 1991 and for Rs.108401 in the year 1994. Totally to a sum of Rs.3,55,072.55 and demanded the amount from the complainant. But later on the opposite party found that an amount of Rs.1,98,407 was charged by them excessively and thereby arise an outstanding arrears to Rs.1,56,655.55. On 17.3.99 the 1st opposite party issued the letter to the complainant that if the outstanding arrears of Rs.1,56,655 and 55 paise is not remitted on or before 27.3.99, the entire electric supply to the farm would be disconnected without any further notice. Aggrieved by the illegal demand made by the opposite party the complainant approached this forum with the above complaint. The complainant contended that non functioning of 2 CTs(current transformers) provided inside the sealed cover at the time of installation of the meter as alleged by the opposite party has not occurred due to the field and they are not liable to pay the excess amount assessed due to its mistake. The complainant sought to maintain that it is the duty of the opposite parties to periodically inspect the meter and rectify defects if any as the meter is the property of the board. It was also contended that in case of any defect in the meter, the consumers cannot be burdened with excessive additional bills. The complainant prays to quash the two bills dated 1.10.91 and 16.11. Rs.3,55,072.55 and for a direction to the opposite parties to reimburse of Rs.1,98,407 received by them in excess and grant such other reliefs deem fit in this case. 2. The opposite party in their version grossly contended that the complainant is engaged in commercial transaction such as production, storage and distribution of bull semen and therefore, he will not come within the definition of the consumer under the Act. They further contended that during the inspection of APTS, they found the meter was registering only 1/3 of the actual consumption as two current transformers connected to the phase for measuring energy were defective. The opposite parties found additional loads to the bull station in contravention to provision of supply of electrical energy. Of course admitted that they have no case that the complainant had tampered with the meter and committed theft of energy. They said that during the normal inspection of the meter such defects in the CTs are not be visible as the connections are provided inside the meter which is covered and sealed. The defects can be noted only when seal is opened and the connections are inspected with proper instruments. The opposite parties prays to dismiss the complaint with proper direction to the complainant, to pay the arrears with interest as demanded by them. 3. The Forum below framed three issues. The evidence adduced by both complainant and opposite party. One witness is examined on the part of the complainant and marked P1 to P8 as exhibits. On the same, one witness also examined by the opposite parties and marked documents as Ext.D1 to D11. The main issue discussed by the Forum below is that whether the complainant is a consumer within the definition under the consumer Protection Act to claim the benefit under the same Act? The Forum discussed the whole issues whether the opposite parties can claim the arrears of electricity charges of Rs.3,55,072.55 from the complainant for additional consumption of energy of the Bull Station for a period from September 83 to April 94? 4. After evaluating the entire evidence available to the Forum below they concluded that there is arrear of bills issued by the opposite parties amounting to sum of Rs.3,55,072.55 is illegal and it is quashed. The Forum below admitted that by the opposite parties that they have adjusted the amount of Rs.1,98,407 and the amount would raised realized both from the complainants against current charges for a period from 1/96 to 8/96 through the above 2 bills mentioned above. This amount will have to be paid to the complainant by the opposite party. The opposite party is at liberty to be adjust the amount from the future bills of the Bull station and it also the Forum below not ordered any other relief claimed by the complainant. 5. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the counsel for the appellants is alone present but there is no representation for the respondent. The learned counsel appeared for the appellants vehemently argued on the basis of the grounds of the appeal memorandum and the counsel submitted that the opposite parties are only entitled to current charges for the energy actually consumed and the counsel submitted that to set aside the order passed by the Forum below. During the time of hearing we gone through the entire documents from the records of the Forum below and it is revealed that both the complainant and opposite parties are part of the public sector undertakings of the Government discussed very seriously about issues involved in this OP on the government to government level. It is also seen that the respondent/opposite party need not tamper the meter with an intention to theft electrical energy. It is not believable that the public sector undertaking or autonomous body like, the complainant need not to do any such an attempt with an intention to theft electrical energy for the wrongful gain. And it is an admitted fact that the appellants has already given certain relief to the complainant as a part of the settlement done at the government level. It is also found that the opposite parties are having the bounden duty to conduct periodical inspection at the premises of the complainant. In this case we are not seeing any question with respect to the maintainability of the complaint. A public sector undertaking is a complainant according to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The contention raised by appellants is that the complainant is commercial establishment. By the amendment of the Consumer Protection Act that in the year of 2002 this contingency was solved. There is no doubt regarding the maintainability of the petition as per this provisions of the law. 6. We are not seeing any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Forum below. The order passed by Forum below is legally sustainable and accordance with the provisions of the law and evidence. We are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the forum below. In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order of the Forum below. All the points are answered accordingly. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
