KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL 390/09 JUDGMENT DATED: 11.3.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. Asst. Executive Engineer, : APPELLANTS Electrical Section, Kottiyam, Kollam. 2. Asst. Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, K.S.E.B., Trivandrum. 3. Secretary, K.S.E.B., Vydhudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum. (By Adv.S.Balachandran) Vs. N.Gopinathan, : RESPONDENT Milege Rubber Industries, Industrial Estate, Umayanalloor, Kollam. (By Adv.Narayan.R) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in CC No.161/07. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P1 additional bill dated 27.2.2006 for Rs.37,805/- The case of the complainant was that additional bill was issued without any basis and there was no reason or ground for demanding such an amount. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version contending that an inspection was conducted by APTS on 25.2.06 and on checking the meter installed at the premises of the complainant there was only 55 volts at B phase of energy meter and it resulted in short assessment of the energy consumption. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing the additional bill for Rs.37,805/-. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 disputed bill and P2 notice dated 2.3.06 were marked on his side. On the side of opposite parties DWs 1 and 2 were examined and D1 site mahasar was also marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below upheld the case of the complainant and thereby the additional bill for Rs.37,805/- was cancelled. The opposite parties were also directed to pay cost of Rs.2500/-. Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in issuing the P1 disputed bill dated 27.2.06 for Rs.37,805? 2) Whether the appellants/opposite parties have succeeded in establishing their case that there was escaped assessment for 6 months prior to the issuance of P1 disputed bill? 3) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 31.1.2009 Passed by CDRF, Kollam in CC.161/07? 4. Points 1 to 3 There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer under the appellant/opposite party KSEB with consumer No. 6881. The complainant being consumer has been remitting energy charge promptly and without any sort of default. But the opposite parties issued disputed bill dated 27.2.06 demanding a sum of Rs.37,805/- The disputed bill issued was based on D1 site mahasar said to have been prepared on 25.2.06. But the respondent/complainant denied preparation of any such mahasar. The definite case of the respondent/complainant was that there was no irregularity for the electricity connection given to the complainant and that P1 bill for Rs.37.805/- was issued without any basis. A perusal of P1 disputed bill would show that no details have been given in the said bill. It is not possible to ascertain as to how the opposite party/KSEB arrived at an amount of Rs.37,805/-. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party could not give any explanation for issuing P1 disputed bill for Rs.37,805/-. He could not point out the way in which such an amount was ascertained or calculated by the appellant/opposite party KSEB. So, the Forum below can be justified in canceling the disputed bill dated 27.2.2006. 5. The definite case of the appellant/opposite party is that there was escaped assessment of energy consumed by the respondent/complainant and that is why P1 disputed bill for Rs.37,805/- was issued. It is also the case of the appellants/opposite parties that the additional bill was issued based on the irregularity detected by the APTS on their inspection on 25.2.06. According to the appellants/opposite parties on checking the energy meter they could detect 55 volts at phase B and the other 2 phases namely phase A and C showed 220 volts. On the basis of said irregularity, the opposite party/KSEB came to the conclusion that there was short assessment or escaped assessment of energy. It is the case of the opposite party/KSEB that they calculated the escaped assessment for a period of 6 months previous to the alleged detection of irregularity. But there was nothing on record to show that the aforesaid irregularity was in existence for a period of 6 months. There is nothing on record to show the period from which the aforesaid irregularity of 55 volts at phase B started or commenced. So, the period of 6 months has been calculated without any material. The calculation of 6 months can only be treated as one based on imagination. Hence the amount of Rs.37,805/- claimed for short assessment for a period of 6 months cannot be upheld. 6. The alleged detection of the irregularity was on 25.2.2006. By the time the Electricity Act, 2003 come into force. Admittedly the new Act came into force with effect from June 2003. So, the provisions of the new Act have to be made applicable in the present case. If that be so, provisions of Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 have to be made applicable. But there is nothing on record to show that the appellants/opposite parties have followed the provisions of Section 126 or 127 of the electricity Act, 2003. If any such irregularity or unauthorized consumption of energy had been detected, then it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to assess the loss as provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Assessing Officer was bound to issue an order assessing the amount due to KSEB. But no such method or procedure has been adopted by the appellant/opposite party. It is also to be noted that the respondent/ complainant(consumer) was not given an opportunity to dispute the alleged case of irregularity or short assessment of the energy consumed. Thus, in all respects the procedure followed by the appellant/opposite party in issuing the P1 disputed bill can be treated as untenable and unsustainable. On that ground alone P1 disputed bill can be cancelled. 7. The respondent/complainant vehemently disputed the alleged irregularity detected by the APTS. It is contended by the complainant that no irregularity could be detected by the APTS and that no site mahasar was prepared by the APTS on 25.2.06. A perusal of D1 site mahasar would support the case of the complainant that no such mahasar was prepared by the APTS. The Forum below perused Ext.D1 site mahasar and rightly appreciated the same in its correct perspective. The finding of the Forum below that D1 site mahasar cannot be relied on as the same was not prepared on 25.2.06. If that be so, the contents of D1 site mahasar regarding alleged irregularity detected on 25.2.06 cannot be up held. The Forum below is perfectly justified in not relying on D1 site mahasar. 8. Admittedly alleged irregularity was detected at phase B of the terminal of the energy meter. There is no dispute that the Sub Engineer, KSEB has been taking the meter readings regularly. But the Sub Engineer could not detect any such irregularity or low consumption. It is to be noted that the appellants/opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to show that there was markable difference in the consumption of energy by the consumer during the relevant period of 6 months which is prior to the alleged detection on 25.2.2006. But, no such escaped consumption of energy could be detected and explained by producing the energy consumed by the complainant/consumer prior to the alleged irregularity and also subsequent to the detection of the alleged irregularity . No such steps have been taken by the appellant/opposite party to substantiate their case regarding short assessment or escaped assessment for the period of 6 months. Hence the case of the appellants/opposite parties that there was short assessment of energy consumed for a period of 6 months can not be believed or accepted. 9. Admittedly the appellants/opposite parties were bound to maintain the service connection of the complainant. They were expected to maintain electricity line and its apparatus in a just and proper manner. Admittedly the aforesaid supply line and the apparatus and other accessories were under the control and maintenance of the appellant/opposite party KSEB. Even if there occurred any irregularity of low volt at phase B of the energy meter that can only be treated as negligent or lapse on the part of the opposite parties/KSEB and its officials. At any rate, the respondent/ complainant(consumer) can not be made liable or answerable for the lapse or negligence of the officials of KSEB. In such a situation, it is just and fair to direct the opposite parties to suffer the consequences of their negligence, lapse or omission. Thus, in all respects the impugned P1 bill dated 27.2.2006 is liable to be cancelled. The Forum below has rightly quashed the P1 bill for Rs.37,805/-. The present appeal deserves dismissal. Hence we do so. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps | 
