KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.395/06
JUDGMENT DATED 28.2.2011
PRESENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaithuthi Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Assistant Engineer, -- APPELLANTS
Anti Power Theft Squad
KSEB, Kalpetta, Wayanad.
3. Assistant Engineer,
KSEB, Electrival Section,
Meenangadi.
(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs.
P.V.Narayanan,
S/0 Velappa, Poongattu Veedu,
Anapara, Chulliyode P.O, -- RESPONDENT
Nenmeni Amsom Desom
Sulthan Bathery Taluk
Wayanad.
(By Adv.Shibi.K.P)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeal is directed against the order dated 31st October 2005 of the CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta in OP.No.101/04. The complaint in the said OP.101/04 was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing penal bills for Rs.13,761/- and Rs.30,963/-. Thereby, the complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned penal bills.
2. The third opposite party/Asst.Engineer, KSEB; Electrical Section, Meenangadi filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the penal bills were issued based on the surprise inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad and in the said inspection misuse of energy was detected. Thus, the third opposite party justified the action of KSEB in issuing the impugned penal bills.
3. Before the Forum below, the complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts.A1 to A6 documents and C1 and C2 reports were marked on the side of the complainant. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties. Based on the unchallenged and un-controverted evidence of the complainant, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 31.10.05 cancelling the impugned penal bills with a direction to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- remitted by the complainant/consumer during the pendency of the complaint in OP.101/04. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties therein.
4. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal and argued for the position that there was misuse of electrical energy by the respondent/complainant (consumer) and so the KSEB is justified in issuing the penal bills.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer under KSEB and that the complainant/consumer is having two electricity connections with Con.Nos.6807 and 8202. Admittedly, the Con.No.6807 is a domestic connection and Con.No.8202 is an agricultural electricity connection. There is no case for the appellant/opposite party KSEB that the complainant/consumer is a defaulter of electricity charges.
6. The definite case of the appellants/opposite parties (KSEB) is that the respondent/complainant (consumer) misused electrical energy by consuming the electricity supplied for domestic and agricultural purpose for the construction of a new house. Further case of the appellants that the alleged misuse of energy was detected by the Anti Power Theft Squad in the surprise inspection conducted on 9.6.03. But the respondent/complainant in his proof affidavit categorically averred that he did not misuse the electricity supplied for domestic purpose and agricultural purpose and that he used portable generator for getting water for the construction of the new building. The complainant/consumer totally denied the alleged misuse of energy.
7. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. He also relied on Ext.C1 Commission report dated 4.11.03 to substantiate his case that there was no misuse of electrical energy. The complainant has also produced Exts.A1 to A6 documents with respect to the issuance of the penal bills and also issuance of demand and disconnection notices. Thus, the evidence of the complainant stands unchallenged and uncontroverted. The Forum below has rightly relied on the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant.
8. The opposite parties failed to cross examine the complainant who filed proof affidavit in support of his case. It is further to be noted that the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence in support of their case regarding misuse of electrical energy. It is contended that the Anti Power Theft Squad, Waynad unit conducted surprise inspection of the premises of the complainant with respect to Con.Nos.6807& 8202. No document is forthcoming evidencing the detection of misuse of energy by the complainant/consumer. The opposite parties neglected to produce the mahazer said to have been prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad. It is further to be noted that no proof affidavit was filed by the opposite parties. The members of the anti power theft squad who conducted the surprise inspection on 9.6.03 have not been examined before the forum below. Not even an affidavit is seen filed by any member of the anti power theft squad. Thus, in effect there is no scrap of paper available on record to substantiate the case of the opposite parties regarding misuse of energy by the complainant/consumer. So, it can very safely be concluded that the opposite parties issued the penal bills without any supporting materials. The Forum below can be justified in cancelling the impugned penal bills issued by the opposite party/KSEB. No reasonable ground or reason is stated by the appellants/opposite parties for their failure in adducing evidence in support of their contention regarding misuse of electrical energy by the respondent/complainant (consumer). So, the impugned order passed by the forum below is liable to be upheld. Hence we do so.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 31.10.05 passed by CDRF, Wayanad Kalpetta in OP.101/04 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
