KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.867/2006 JUDGMENT DATED 21.5.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydhyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Executive Engineer, -- APPELLANTS KSEB, Electrical Section, Marayoor, Idukki District. (By Adv.V.SVineethkumar) Vs. P.Vijayan Managing Director, Chandana Residency, -- RESPONDENT Marayoor, Idukki District. (By Adv.Eapen Martin) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 7th November 2006 passed by CDRF, Idukki in CC. 36.2006. The above complaint was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants opposite parties to get the P2 bill dated 8.2.2006 for Rs.4,39,309/- cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P2 bill demanding Rs.4,39,309/-. It was further alleged that the said bill was issued without any basis and that there was no theft of electrical energy as contended by the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version contending that there was theft of electrical energy and criminal case was registered as Crime No.25/06 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 by the Marayoor Police and that the theft of electrical energy was detected by the Anti Power Theft Squad who conducted the inspection on 8.2.06. Thus, the opposite parties denied the alleged deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P 20 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order cancelling the impugned bill dated 8.2.06 for Rs.4,39,309/-. The opposite party/KSEB was also directed to get the power meter inspected by the Electrical Inspector and to reconsider the matter afresh. It is against the said order the present appeal is filed. 3. 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. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that there was theft of electrical energy by the respondent/complainant and so the Forum below had no jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute involving theft of electrical energy. He further submitted that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellants justified their action in issuing the penal bill for Rs.4,39,309/- on the ground of theft of electrical energy. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 4. The respondent/complainant is a consumer of electrical energy. He availed the services of the appellants/opposite parties in getting the electrical energy supplied. Admittedly, the complainant was remitting the energy charges for the energy consumed. He was a consumer under Tariff VII (A). Thus, the complainant is to be treated as a consumer availing the services of the opposite parties on consideration. 5. The definite case of the appellants/opposite parties is that the respondent/complainant committed theft of electrical energy. It is further contended that the theft of electrical energy was detected by the Anti Power Theft Squad who conducted inspection of the premises of the complainant on 8.2.06. The Anti Power Theft Squad had also prepared a mahazer on 8.2.06. But the opposite parties have not produced the aforesaid mahazer prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad. Ext.P4 is the carbon copy of the disputed mahazer dated 8.2.06. The complainant has categorically disputed the aforesaid mahazer dated 8.2.06. The definite case of the complainant is that there was no such inspection of the premises by the Anti Power Theft Squad and there was no detection of theft of energy. This P4 mahazer has been denied and disputed by the complainant. The complainant as PW1 has also challenged the genuineness and correctness of P4 mahazer dated 8.2.06. PW1 is definite on his stand that there was no such inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad and no mahazer was prepared as contended by the opposite parties. But, there is no contra evidence forthcoming from the opposite parties. The persons who were in the Anti Power Theft Squad have not been examined in this case. The person who prepared the alleged P4 mahazer has not been examined as a witness. Thus, the opposite parties have not succeeded in establishing their case regarding the inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad on 8.2.06 and preparation of a mahazer evidencing theft of electrical energy. Thus, in effect the opposite parties have not established their case regarding the theft of electrical energy. On the other hand, the available evidence would show that there was no such theft of electrical energy as contended by the opposite parties. 6. It is true that in the case of theft of electrical energy the agencies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding theft of electrical energy. The mere fact that theft of electrical energy is alleged is not sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. There must be a strong primafacie case to support the alleged case regarding theft of electrical energy. But in this case no such evidence or substantiating material is available to make out a primafacie case regarding theft of electrical energy. The Forum below is perfectly justified in entertaining the complaint in CC 36/06. Thus, the Forum below had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in CC.36/06 which was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P2 penal bill dated 8/2/06 for Rs.4,39,309/-. 7. The available evidence on record would show that the appellants/opposite parties issued P2 penal bill dated 8.2.06 for Rs.4,39,309/- without any basis. The alleged theft of electrical energy has not been proved or established. There is no material available on record to substantiate the case regarding the alleged theft of electrical energy. So, the Forum below is perfectly justified in cancelling P2 penal bill dated 8.2.06 for Rs.4,39,309/-. No justifiable reason or ground is stated by the appellants for not adducing any evidence in support of the case regarding theft of electrical energy. There is also nothing on record to support the case of the appellants that the Anti Power Theft Squad detected theft of electrical energy on 8.2.2006. Thus, in all respects the Forum below can be justified in canceling P2 demand /bill dated 8.2.2006. It is also to be noted that the Forum below has given the liberty to appellants/opposite parties to reconsider the question regarding theft of electrical energy. No substantial prejudice will be caused to the appellants by the impugned order dated 7th November 2006 passed by CDRF, Idukki in CC.36/06. We do not find any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The present appeal deserves dismissal. Hence we do so. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the forum below is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER s/L | 
