By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is given below.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a Partnership Firm having a Crusher unit at Ponnada having consumer No.7759 for the supply of electricity alloted by the Opposite Party. The Crusher unit started after supply of electricity on proper verification. The energy meter C.T. Coil box and other accessories were installed strictly compelled with directions and requirements of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.2 used to visit the Crusher unit from time to time. The meter reading was taken monthly by the Sub Engineer and the bills were issued accordingly. The bills issued by the Opposite Party from April 2003 to July 2003 were paid regularly.<br /> <br /> 2. On 3.6.2004 the Assistant Engineer one P.J. Vincent along with an another Assistant Engineer M.S. Sivarajan visited the firm and prepared mahazer. In presence of Gunasegaran one of the partners of the firm. On inspection the meter and connected things found to be intact. The mahazer dated 3.6.2004 further recorded that the CT Coil A and B phases where found open. The request of the Complainant to make the faulty meter for inspection was not heeded. If any thing improper was found in meter the Opposite Party is bound by law to question the Complainant in that respect and that too was not done by the Opposite Party. Instead of hearing the Complainant after preparing mahazer issued a bill for Rs. 80,030/- on 23.6.2004. The request of the Complainant with respect to the electric meter for a thorough inspection was not considered by the Opposite Parties. The bill amount Rs.80,030/- is absolutely arbitrary and quite unilateral. The Complainant's firm is a Crusher unit where in near about 50 workers are daily engaged. The Complainant further requests for cancellation of the bill dated 23.6.2004 served on the Complainant.<br /> <br /> - 2 -<br /> 3. It is also prayed that honourable Forum may be pleased to set aside the bill No.4126 dated 23.6.2004 issued on KPT 0603/04-05. There may be an order to the Opposite Party not to disconnect the consumer No.7759 along with cost of this Complainant.<br /> <br /> 4. The Opposite Party filed version. Accordingly the Complainant is consumer with No.7759 under electrical section Kalpetta. The payments made by the Complainant as submitted in the bills issued to the consumer No.7759 from 4/2003 to 9/2004 as admitted. The Anti Power Theft Squad of Kerala State Electricity Board headed by the Assistant Engineer conducted the inspection on the premises of the Consumer on 03.06.2004. It was known in the inspection that the C.T. Coil in phase 'A' and 'C' are found open. The consumption of 2 phases were not recorded. The energy meeter recording of the 'B' phase was working properly. Sri. Gunasekharan, the partner of the firm who was present at the time of inspection was convinced it. The seals attached to power meter, light meter, C.T. Coil and the accessories were found in tact. A site mahazer prepared was duly acknowledged by Sri. Gunasekharan. The defective C.T. Coils were replaced by new one and on testing it found correct. The dismantled 3 C.T. Coil were inspected and found that 'A' and 'C' phases were not working. In order to compensate the loss sustained by the board due to non recording of energy in 'A' and 'C' phases, a bill for Rs.80,030/- for a consumption of 22704 units during the period 2/2004 to 5/2004 was served on the consumer. The Opposite Party has no allegation that the Complainant had done any malpractices in the C.T.Coil. The bill does not include any penal charges. The bill of Rs.80,030/- issued to the Complainant is only as per rules. The appeal against the bill filed before the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram was ordered with a direction to remit 25% of the assessed amount and the direction by the Deputy Chief Engineer was not complied with.<br /> (Contd......3)<br /> <br /> - 3 -<br /> 5. In normal case bills are issued basing on the meter reading taken by the Sub Engineer concerned. While taking the regular meter reading the Sub engineers are not expected to examine the conditions of C.T. Coil. Only upon the detailed verification defects upon C.T. Meter and its accessories can be recognized. The bill issued to the Complainant is not having deficiency in service. The assessment of the amount upon the non recording of energy and the amount Rs.80,030/- demanded in the bill is as per rules and the Complainant is liable to be dismissed. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> 6. Points in consideration are.<br /> 1. Is there any deficiency in service in the bill issued to the Complainant?.<br /> 2. Relief and cost. <br /> <br /> 7. Point No.1: The Complainant is examines as PW1. Ext.A1 to A6 are marked to substantiate the pleadings of the Complainant. Ext.A4 dated 23.6.2004 is the electricity bill of Rs.80,030/- issued to the complainant under pretext of energy charge for the unrecorded consumption of energy. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant's firm is a stone crusher unit. The electricity bill paid to the Complainant from time to time were remitted in time. The complainant concern is in use of high voltage of electricity. Being a consumer using around 10 KW the Sub Engineer and Assistant Engineer belonging to the opposite Party made their periodical monthly visit. The Opposite Party has to note and rectify the non functioning of the C.T.Coils. The bill issued for the amount Rs.80,030/- for the period of 2/2004 to 5/2004 towards the unrecorded energy is erroneous and illegal and hence the bill is to be quashed.<br /> <br /> 8. According to the Opposite Party the bill of Rs.80,030/- as per Ext.A4 is issued towards the unrecorded energy. The inspection wing headed by the Assistant Engineer of Anti <br /> (Contd. 4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> Power Theft Squad detected the C.T. Coils in phase A and C are faulty which lead to non recording of energy. Any defect in C.T. Coils, it cannot be detected in normal periodic inspection unless a detail examination is done. <br /> <br /> 9. The Complainant filed I.A 246 to send the C.T coils for inspection of the Electrical Inspector, Meenangadi to gauge the extent of fault if any in the C.T Coils. The Complainant remitted the required fees Rs.300/- in pursuance of testing the C.T.Coil and the challan receipt also produced. Any how the inspection of the C.T.Coils was not affected. <br /> <br /> 10. The Opposite Party has no allegation that the Complainant extracted energy illegally or any malpractices were in use in drawing energy. The Opposite Party has not charged any penal fees. Ext.A6 is the copy of the petition filed before the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS head quarters, Thiruvananthapuram. It is admitted on examination by OPW1, Assistant Engineer APTS, Electricity board that the inspection visit to the concerns which consumes more than 10 KW is done by the Junior Engineer periodically. The purpose of the inspection visit is non other than ascertaining the recording of energy and the process of consumption. It is also admitted by the OPW1, the Assistant Engineer that if any fault in the meter is noted the party can themselves sent the meter for inspection by Electrical Inspector and the report of the Electrical Inspectgor is usually sent to Electricity Board. In the instant case the C.T.Coils are removed by the Opposite Party and it was not produced in order to sent it for inspection by the Electrical Inspector, Meenangadi. The Opposite Party has not produced any document to substantiate their contention further it is also deposed by the Assistant Engineer that he was aware of petition filed by the Complainant to produce the removed C.T.Coils but the coils were not tested on the ground that the Electricity Board is not in practice of keeping up the scrapped materials more than 6 months. It is the reason, according to the Opposite Party for the non production of the removed C.T.Coils. More over the Opposite Party <br /> (Contd......5)<br /> - 5 -<br /> has not filed any affidavit in that ground. Ext.A2 is the mahazer prepared on 3.06.2004 upon inspection by an Assistant Engineer. Ext.A3 is an another mahazer prepared by an Assistant Engineer on 23.06.2004 which is prepared in connection with the installation of another C.T.Coil instead of the former coils. The amount demanded in Ext.A4 the bill dated 23.06.2004 is not based on legally liable consumption of energy and further it is not supported by any evidence on the part of the Opposite Party. The bill dated 23.06.2004 numbered KPT 0603/2004/2005 issued to the complainant is incorrect and illegal. The point No.1 is found accordingly.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No.2: The Opposite Party demanded upon notice for an amount of Rs.80,030/- through the bill dated 23.06.2004. It is the charge levied upon the Complainant for the unrecorded energy for the period in between 2/2004 and 5/2004. The bill issued on 23.06.2004 is erroneous.<br /> <br /> In the result, the bill dated 23.06.2004 No. KPT/0603/2004/2005 dated 03.06.2004 is quashed. The Complainant is not entitled to remit the amount Rs.80,030/- (Rupees Eighty thousand and Thirty only) in the way of electricity charge. The Opposite parties are also directed to give the complainant Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) towards the cost of this proceedings. The order is to be complied by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 8th day of May 2008.