KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 184/2006

JUDGMENT DATED:  27-01-2010

PRESENT:

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   :  MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                    :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.      The Secretary,

          K.S.E.B, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.      The Assistant Executive Engineer,

          K.S.E.B, Electrical Major Section,

          Manipuzha, Thiruvalla.

3.      The Assistant Engineer,

          Electrical Section, Manipuzha, Thiruvalla.

                (Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

                                    Vs

RESPONDENT

P.C. Shaji,

Puramattathu House, Karackal P.O., Thiruvalla.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri. A. Balakrishnan & Sri. R. Jayachandran)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR :  MEMBER

The opposite parties in OP No. 27/02 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta are under directions to cancel Ext.P2 bill and pay the complainant a compensation of Rs. 2,500/- together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.  The opposite parties are also under instructions to reconnect the supply immediately, free of costs, on receipt of the copy of the order.  It is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite parties have approached this Commission for setting aside the order passed by the Forum below.

2.      The complainant has a case that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and while so the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 20,000/-, which he is not liable to pay.  Though the opposite parties were requested to cancel the bill they were not amenable and hence the complaint was filed praying for the cancellation of the bill along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with a further direction to reconnect the supply, which was disconnected by the opposite parties.

3.      In the version filed by the opposite parties, it was submitted that on an inspection of the complainant’s premises on 24-12-2001 illegal abstraction of electrical energy from the service wire of the complainant’s house to a nearby building was detected and that a site mahazar was prepared by the second opposite party and further that the mahazar was conclusive proof for the illegal abstraction of electrical energy by the complainant.  It was also submitted that the complainant had given a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- for getting reconnection, which was later dishonoured.  The claims of the complainant were strongly disputed by the opposite parties and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents P1 to P5 on the side of the complainant.  On the side of the opposite parties, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts. R1 to R7 were marked.  It is based on the said evidence that the Forum has passed the impugned order.

5.      The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued the case based on the contentions taken in the version as well as the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  It is his very case that the Forum’s direction to withdraw Ext.P2 bill is against law and hence the order as a whole is liable to be set aside.  It is also argued by him that the opposite parties have acted only according to rules and Ext.R1 the copy of the site mahazar was prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer, the second opposite party/second appellant and that the said mahazar was proved by DW1 who was a witness at the time of inspection.  The learned Counsel has further submitted before us that the complainant was ready and willing to pay the amount, which can be seen from the remittance by cheque for the amount of Rs. 20,000/-.  He has also advanced the contention that the complainant had approached the Forum to escape from the proceedings against the dishonour of the cheque and that the Forum has failed in appreciating the evidence tendered by the opposite parties in its correct perspective.  He has also submitted that the Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint in toto.

6.      On an appreciation of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and on perusing the records, we find that Ext.R1 is the site mahazar prepared by the second opposite party at the time of inspection on 24-12-2001.  It is also found that the said mahazar is witnessed by Mr. Gopalakrishnan Nair who is working in Electrical Major Section, Manipuzha.  He has been examined before the Forum and the complainant has not brought out anything to discredit the facts stated by the witness.  It is also to be seen that the complainant has given a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- towards payment of Ext.R3, the bill issued by the opposite parties for illegal abstraction of electrical energy found out by them.  However, the fact that the cheque was dishonoured is also to be taken note of while considering the matter for disposal.  It was a ruse on the side of the complainant to issue a cheque without sufficient funds for getting reconnection and we find that such action of the complainant gives ample opportunity to come to the presumption that the complainant also knew about the abstraction of electrical energy from his house to a nearby house.  It is also to be seen that the conduct of the complainant gives an impression that the opposite parties were correct in issuing a penal bill consequent to detection of unauthorized use of electrical energy.  In the circumstances, the issue of penal bill by the opposite parties cannot be found fault with.  Unfortunately, the Forum has failed in considering the above facts and has passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.  We are inclined to set aside the said order of the Forum below and we do so accordingly.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order of the Forum below in OP No. 27/02 is set aside.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, there is no order as to costs.

             S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR :  MEMBER

VALSALA SARANGADHARAN  :  MEMBER

                                      M.V. VISWANATHAN  :  JUDICIAL MEMBER