Date of filing :  23-09-2009

                                                                                       Date of order :  19-07-2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                C.C. 210/09

                         Dated this, the 19^th   day of July 2010

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                       : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI                             : MEMBER

P.Bhaskaran,

S/o. P.V.Kunhambu Nair (Late),

Rajbhavan, Near Railway Station,                                               } Complainant

Cheruvathur.Po. 671313.

(Adv.Subhash Bozz, Kasaragod)

1. Sasi Thomas, Assistant Engineer,                               } Opposite parties

    A.P.T.S, Kasaragod

    (Exparte)

2. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section,

    K.S.E.B, Pilicode.

3. Deputy Chief Engineer,

    Electrical Circle, Kasaragod.

(Ops 2 & 3. Adv. P.Raghavan, Kasaragod)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT             

            Case of the complainant in brief is that on 9-9-2008 1^st opposite party with the aid of some police officials conducted a surprise inspection of his house.  They  prepared a site mahazar stating that the complainant has drawn  a electric line using PVC cable to an extent of 20 meters from the nearby house belongs to himself to his house and found using a press box.  Later on 15-09-2008 2^nd opposite party served him a demand notice for 18,000/- rupees.  Against the said demand he preferred an appeal before opposite party No.3.  As per his order he remitted 9048/- rupees before opposite party No.2.  Thereafter his electric connection is restored.  Subsequently the appeal preferred by him was heard and dismissed by opposite party No.3 and the complainant is directed to pay the balance 9,000/- rupees on or before 22-5-2009.  The said amount is also remitted before opposite party No.2.  According to the complainant the adjacent house situated near to his house is also belongs to him having separate electric connection.  But the said fact is conveniently suppressed by opposite party No.1 in the mahazar prepared by them.  Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

2.            Against the registered notices issued, opposite party No.1 remained absent. Therefore opposite party No.1 had to be set exparte.  Opposite parties 2 & 3 filed version.  According to opposite parties 2 & 3 the Anti Power theft Squad conducted a surprise  inspection on the premises of the complainant having Consumer No. 14363.  On inspection they found that the complainant was unauthorisedly  looping electricity from the premises to the new house by extending PVC wire to the plug installed in the upstairs.  At the time of inspection an electric iron box was seen connected to the plug.  The complainant was unauthorisedly extending wire from the consumer No.14363 to the new house.  Hence a site mahazar is prepared a copy of the same is given to the complainant’s son who was present at the time of inspection.  The opposite parties has prepared a bill as per Sec 126 of Electricity Act and rule 27A to Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005.  The complainant is liable to remit the said bill.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 

3.            Complainant filed affidavit in support of his case Exts A1 to A8 marked on the side of opposite parties.  Both sides heard and documents perused.

4.            Complainant stated that against the assessment of opposite parties U/s 126 of Electricity Act 2003 he preferred an appeal U/s 127 of the said Act before opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 dismissed his appeal.  The order of opposite party No.3 attained finality and the complainant has remitted the amount as per the order of opposite party No.3.

5.          Though we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for the relief claimed and the demand made by opposite parties are legally not sustainable we are helpless to given an order in his favour in view of the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Jharkand State Electricity Board and another V. Anwar Ali reported 2008 CTJ 837 (CP) (NCDRC) in the said judgment it is held that ‘ Against the assessment order passed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, a consumer has option either file appeal U/s 127 of the Electricity Act or to approach the Consumer Forum  by filing complaint.  He has to select either of the remedy.

            The complainant has already chosen his option by filing appeal U/s 127 of Electricity Act before opposite party No.3.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable and it accordingly fails.  The complaint is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. 

      Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                                              Sd/-

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1.Site Mahazar.

A2. Notice.

A2(a) Letter sent by  OP No.2 to complainant.

A3. Receipt amount of   Rs.500/-

A4.Receipt  amount of Rs.9048/-

A5.Arrear settelement letter

A6.Certificate

A7. Notice

A8. Notice.

B1. Photocopy of notice.

B2. Photocopy of the findings of the APTS Unit, Kasaragtod.

B3.Photocopy of meter reading details.

        Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                                   Sd/-              

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

Pj/                                                                                Forwarded by Order

                                                                           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT