ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows:<br /> The Complainant is a consumer of electricity connection with consumer No.8251. The supply of electricity to the Complainant is for agricultural purpose. On 30.10.2001 the Opposite Party gave an additional bill of Rs.18,144/- for additional load of electricity imposed on diverting the supply of current for the farming purpose to house purpose. The Complainant was not aware of the ground on which the additional bill was imposed. The bill issued for the<br /> (Contd ..... 2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> <br /> additional load and malpractices are done by the Opposite Party without getting any clarification<br /> from the Complainant. The Complainant was in use of electric supply only for agricultural purpose. The additional bill given to the Complainant is arbitrary false and apart from the reasons. It is nothing but unscrupulous exploitation of a consumer. The complainant has been paying the bills of electricity without any default. The meeter reading charges were regularly paid. The additional bill amount is illegal and the Complainant is not any way entitled to pay the amount. On 29.10.2001 the Opposite Party No.3 visited the house of the Complainant and obtained a sign by the brother of the Complainant in a blank paper. The Opposite Party No.3 obtained signature in blank paper the reason pointed out was that he wanted to make use of that document to show higher officials. Using the blank and signed paper the Complainant made false document and prepared an additional bill. On 02.11.2001 the Complainant sent a registered notice to the Opposite Party No.2 and requested for an opportunity of being heard before issuance of any such bill. The Opposite Parties initiated coercive steps against the Complainant. The application sent to Opposite Parties were not responded.<br /> The Complainant has not done any malpractices and there on the additional bill imposed is not liable to be paid. There may be an order to cancel the bill No.121014 dated 30.10.2001 and to pay the cost to the complaint.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant is a consumer of electric connection. The supply of electricity was for agricultural purpose alone under the virtue of the agreement made and entered in to between respondent and Complainant. It is mandatory on the part of the Complainant to use electricity for farming operation alone. The spot bills issued to the Complainant was regularly paid. The electric lines were installed in that area in pursuance of mass petition and the supply of<br /> (Contd .........3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> <br /> electricity was dealt with the agreement of the minimum of guaranty. 24 numbers of agricultural connections were given and the agreement were executed between the respondent <br /> board and the consumers. The Complainant as such the other consumers are to remit a minimum amount as shown appended with the minimum guaranty agreement. No consumer is entitled to divert the use of electric energy supplied other than agricultural purpose. The use of electric energy for any other purpose will tantamount violation of the minimum guaranty agreement. As well as the individual service connection which will also be treated as the repudiation of the terms and conditions. The consumer No. MET 8251 site was inspected on 29.10.2001 followed by the information. It was noticed that the Complainant had a unauthorized extension of electricity to her near by house using PVC wire. The house is located above 30 meters away from the pump house. At the time of inspection it was noted that the unauthorized extension was having a connected load of 240 watts. A mahazer was <br /> prepared to show that the inspection was carried out and the Complainant's Son A. Ali is a witness. The Complainant had drawn the house connection from the pump set from the very next day onwards on receiving electricity connection. The act of the Complainant caused heavy loss to the respondent board any how the additional load was remitted to 180 days. It is on the view that the Complainant availed the additional supply for six month with 240 watts per day for domestic purpose. The amount levied on the Complainant is lesser than the actual loss caused to the respondent board. The complaint filed is with malefide intention and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the respondent.<br /> <br /> The points which are to be considered are:-<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?.<br /> 2.Relief and costs.<br /> (Contd ......4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> <br /> Point No.1: <br /> The Complainant's grand son, the power of attorney holder is examined as PW1. The bill issued to the Complainant on 30.10.2001 for the payment of Rs.18,144/-. It is admitted<br /> by PW1 that the witness detailed in the mahazer that is Ext.A4 is the brother of his father. The Complainant's contention that the document Ext.A4 is a falsely fabricated document. It was written in the paper were a signature was obtained priorly in the blank paper. It is undisputed that the bill of additional charges that is Ext.A1 is dated 30.10.2001. The Complaint was sent to the Assistant Executive Engineer on 01.11.2001. The additional bill sent to the Complainant as the result of the complaint sent to the Assistant Executive Engineer is not supported by any <br /> evidence. The other document filed by the Complainant is Ext.A5, which is photo copy of a mass petition. The date shown in that mass petition is over written as admitted by the Complainant. The Ext.A5 shows the name of 137 persons and no one is with any address. Ext.A6 is the letter addressed to Deputy Chief Engineer. But there is nothing to show that whether the letter was sent in registered post or the means of which the letter is communicated to the addressee. The date shown in that document is 3.11.2001. The PW1 already admitted that they have no electricity connection in their house. The contention of the Opposite Party that the Complainant's house is in use of 240 watts of electricity is undisputed by any evidence. From the above inferences it is to be considered that the complainant made use of the extension of electricity from the pump house for domestic purpose and it is against the terms of agreement. The imposition of additional amount for the unauthorized use of electricity is not interfered. The point No.1 is found against the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> <br /> (Contd ......5)<br /> 5 -<br /> Point No.2: <br /> An elaborate discussion of point No.2 is not required. The complaint is not inherent<br /> <br /> with genuine reasons and the complaint is dismissed and no order upon the costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 15th day of January 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Ibrahim. Teacher.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Opposite Parties:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Bill. dt: 30.10.2001.<br /> A2. Power of Attorney. <br /> A3. Copy of Notice. dt: 01.11.2001.<br /> A3(a). Postal receipt. <br /> A4. Mahazer. <br /> A5. Photo copy of Mass Petition. dt: 28.11.2001.<br /> A6. Copy of letter. dt: 03.11.2001.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for Opposite Parties:<br /> <br /> Nil. <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.