KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 497/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 25.11.2009 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.A.139/2002 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER 1.The Kerala State Electricity Board, APPELLANTS rep.by its Secretary, Vaidhuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Asst.Exe.Engineer, Electrical Major Section, North, Alappuzha-1. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) vs. Mariyumma Ummer, :RESPONDENT Kallelithazhcha Purayidathil Canal Ward, Alappuzha. (By Adv.P.Rajmohan) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 4.11.2004 passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.A.139/2002 . The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P2 bill for Rs.7554/-. The aforesaid bill was issued alleging unauthorized connection from the domestic connection given to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that there was no unauthorized drawing of electricity line; but she had only drawn a line for providing a 40 watts bulb to her pathway. The opposite parties relied on Ext.B3 site mahasar prepared by 2nd opposite party, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section North, Alappuzha and also the testimony of the 2nd opposite party as RW1. On an appreciation of the evidence on record the Forum below allowed the complaint by quashing P1 and P2 Notice and bill for Rs.7554/-. Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties therein. 2. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted their arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on B3 site mahasar and argued for the position that there was unauthorized connection from the domestic connection provided for the complainant. It is further alleged that the unauthorized connection was taken for providing light to the nearby automobile workshop, S.K.Motors. Thus, the appellants requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and for dismissal of the complaint in OP.No.A139/2002. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and requested for dismissal of the appeal. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P1 notice and P2 bill can be accepted? 2) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 4.11.04 passed by the CDRF Alappuzha in OP.A139/02? 4. Points 1 and 2:- There is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer under KSEB with consumer No.8902. The aforesaid connection was provided as the domestic connection. The case of the opposite parties is that the complainant/consumer has drawn an unauthorized line to provide light to the nearby automobile workshop by name S.K.Motors. On the other hand, the complainant/consumer would plead that there was no such unauthorized connection; but a 40 watts bulb was provided by drawing temporary lines and the said light was provided to get access to pathway. A witness from the side of the complainant was examined as PW1 and she has deposed in support of the averments in the complaint. Her evidence stands unchallenged. The 2nd opposite party, Asst.Exe.Engineer has given evidence as RW1. He also proved Ext.B3 site mahasar. It is an admitted fact that the so called unauthorized line was drawn only for providing light to the nearby courtyard. According to the opposite parties 100 watt bulb was attached to the said line . But the case of the complainant is that only 40 watts bulb was fixed to the said line. Anyhow it can be seen that the additional or unauthorized line was drawn only for the purpose of providing light to the nearby courtyard and to get access to the pathway for the complainant/consumer. The mere fact that the Automobile workshop was also getting light from the aforesaid 100 or 40 watts bulb cannot be taken as a ground to treat the said connection as unauthorized one. It is an accepted fact that the domestic consumers can consume energy for other purposes for their own use, without exceeding 20% of their permitted/authorized connected load. In the present case the complainant/consumer has only drawn temporary line for the purpose of getting light to the courtyard and in turn to get access tothe nearby pathway. There is nothing on record to show that the connection was given to the Automobile workshop by name S.K.Motors. Ext.B3 site mahasar would only show that a light is provided near the Automobile workshop namely S.K.Motors. The opposite parties have not succeeded in establishing their case that there was drawing of unauthorized line to provide light to the nearby Automobile workshop. On the other hand, the facts, circumstances and the available materials would only show that the complainant/consumer has only drawn temporary line to get light to her courtyard and pathway. So the aforesaid drawing of the temporary line can only be treated as line drawn for domestic purposes. 2nd opposite party cannot be justified in treating the aforesaid consumption of energy for commercial purpose. The Ext.P1 demand notice and Ext.P2 bill were issued to the complainant without any justification. The Forum below has rightly quashed the Ext.P1 notice and P2 bill. We do not find any 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 passed by the Forum below in OP.A139/02 is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER ps | 
