By Sri. K. Gheevarghese President. The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as given below. 1. The Complainant is a Partnership Firm represented by its Managing Partner. In the Contd....2) 2. shop complex of the Complainant 26 electric connections are there. One connection to Arun Tourist Home and another to Hotel Vrindavan, the concerns of the Complainant are with consumer No.5542 and 5543 respectively. Ever since the electric connection was in use of the Complainant the bills were paid regularly. The supply of electricity to the Complainants concerns were under special tariff. On the application of the Complainant to the 3rd Opposite Party the tariff was cut down on finding that the consumption of electricity is below 10 KW. On 05.05.2003 an inspection was conducted by the 3rd Opposite Party and a mahazer was prepared. The notice was issued to the Complainant in pursuance of the inspection. It is alleged that the meters of consumer No.5542 and 5543 are found tampered and extracted energy unauthorisedly. The inspection was done in the absence of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties issued a bill of Rs.51,074/- with respect to consumer No. 5542 and Rs. 88,399/- is demanded in consumer No. 5543. The notice dated 08.05.2003 also demanded Rs. 5947/- towards the cost of energy meter on or before 16.5.2003. The Sub Engineer and Assistant Engineer had inspected the entire electric installation in the month of February and they have find the meter intact. The amount demanded vide the bill dated 8.5.2003 in consumer No.5542 and 5543 are nothing but intented to harras the Complainant. There may be an order to declare the notice No. D.B.18/13-04/39, bill No.24410 and bill No.24412 dated 8.5.2001 are illegal and null and avoid and the Complainant is not liable to pay any amount as per the above bills along with cost to the Complainant. The Opposite Party may be directed not to disconnected the service to the Consumer No.5542 and 5543. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The Opposite Party along with Contd......3) 3. Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the meters in consumer No.5542 and 5543 on 05.5.2003. Upon the inspection the meters found tampered and some irregularities were noted and was made known to the representative of the Complainant. A scene Mahazer was prepared in presence of the representative Sri. Muraleedharan but he was not ready to sign as a witness in the mahazer. The refusal of the representative to sign the mahazer also record in the mahazer and the mahazer is attested by the two Police Constables. The Tampering of the energy meter was done which was to abstract energy illegaly and unauthorisedly. The consumer is responsible to maintain the meter intact and in safe custody. In contrary to that the Complainant is falty as per clause 42(d) and 43 of the conditions of supply of electrical energy. The averment in the complaint that the 3rd Opposite Party is inspected the premises in February 2003 is utterly false. The Sub Engineer and 3rd Opposite Party inspected the premises and the installation of electric arrangements in September 2002 in connection with alteration of the installation and reduction of connected load to 9 K.W. The Anti Power Theft Squad made surprise visit in various premises and in course, the consumer No.5542 and 5543 were also inspected. The allegation of the Complainant that the inspection was done without notice and in the absence of the Complainant and the complaint is absolutely baseless. The tampering of the meter is against the provisions of the Electricity Act. The Complainant is liable to pay bills. The inspection was done not with any ulterior motives or any undue interest. The tampering of meters caused loss. to the electricity board. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost. 3. The points in consideration are. 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party? 2.Relief and cost. (Contd.......4.) - 4 - 4. Point No.1: - The Managing Partner of the Complainant is examined as PW1. The allegation in the complaint is that the electric energy supplied to Arun Tourist Home in Consumer No.5542 and connection supplied to hotel Vrindavan with Consumer 5543 were in the category of the higher user of electric energy more than 10 K.W. Up on application by the complainant, the tariff in which the above consumer numbers belonged were later changed in to the category of consumers using lower than 10 K.W. Along with the officials in Anti Power Theft Squad, the 3rd Opposite Party made a surprise inspection in to the concerns of the Consumer No.5542 and 5543. A mahazer was prepared, later a bill of Rs.51,074/- was issued to the consumer No.5542 and another bill of Rs.88,399/- to the consumer No.5542 were issued. The additional bills were issued on the ground that the Complainant abstracted energy tampering the meters. 5. The 3rd Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. The contentions of the Opposite Parties are that the electric connection in consumer numbers 5542 and 5543 were initially included in the category of consumption above 10 K.W. On application the tariff was changed to the category belonging to consumption below 10 K.W. A surprise inspection was carried out along with Assistant Engineer of APTS and 3rd Opposite Party. The abstraction of energy tampering the meters in consumer No.5542 and 5543 was realized. Mahazer was prepared in presence of witnesses. Ext.A4 is the copy of the mahazer dated 5.5.2003. The witness signed in the mahazer are the Police Constables who was called for to witness inspection. An another person named Muraleedharan showed his unwillingness to sign as a witness. This too is recorded in mahazer. Ext. A2 is the additional bill given in to the Consumer No.5542 of Rs.51,074/- and Ext.A3 is the additional bill given to the Consumer No.5543 of Rs.88,399/-. Both the bills are dated on 8.5.2003. Ext. C1 is the report of the Commissioner. The electric inspector, Wayanad is appointed as the Commissioner. The inspection was carried out with Assistant Engineer, (Contd.....4) 5 Kalpetta. The Commissioner was examined as PW2. According to the Commissioner the meter of consumer No.5542 is having 4 seals and the seals were not broken. However the meter had loose contact. In the case of meter of consumer No.5543, even if the seal is broken the meter cannot be opened. It is further deposed by the Commissioner that both the meter were not tampered on his verification and more over according to the Commissioner no theft of energy was visible. The Commissioner is the authorised person to report the tampering affected. The reason for the loose contact is not known to the commissioner. The Ext.C1 also affirms that no tampering was detected on both the meters. Further no theft of energy was able to be detected by the Commissioner. The 3rd Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. On examination it is deposed that if the connected load is above 10 K.W an official not below the rank of Sub Engineer has to take the meter reading. No tampering of the meter was reported. The Ext.A4 the mahazer is not signed by an independent witness. In the mahazer also the theft of energy is not recorded. The calibration and proper functioning of the meter is to be inspected by the electric Inspector who is the authorised person to report inspection. It is also deposed by the 3rd Opposite Party that he could not make out any illegal abstraction or any misuse of energy in the concerned consumer numbers. Above all the meter he found, tampered was not sent for an expert opinion after inspection. No abstraction of energy in consumer number 5542 and 5543 in tampering the meters were noted or any other device on method used by Complainant hindering the proper registration of calibration in metering of electric current brought out in evidence by Opposite Party. The bill number 24412 dated 8.5.2003 issued to the consumer number 5543, B3820 7A and the bill dated 8.5.2003 numbered 24410 issued to the consumer No.5542/ B3821A 7A are improper and beyond reasons. The point number 1 is found accordingly. Contd......6) 6. 6. Point No.2: - The Opposite Party issued the bills Ext.A3 in consumer No.5543 and Ext.A2 is the consumer No.5542. Apart from the bills issued towards tampering of energy meter. A bill for Rs.5,947/- was given to the complainant towards the cost of energy meter. The Opposite Party issued the bills raised on the tampering alleged on the energy meters. The amount of Rs.51,074/- in consumer No.5542 demanded vide the bill and the bill dated 8.5.2003 issued consumer No.5542 of Rs.88,399/- are against reasons. The Opposite Party has not established their plea substantiating evidence that the energy is abstracted tampering the meters. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. Hence the bill No. 24,412 dated 8.5.2003 and bill No. 24410 dated 8.5.2003 issued in consumer No.5543 and 5542 are quashed. The Opposite Parties are directed to comply with this order within one months from the date of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March 2008.
