CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
K.N Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 314/2009
Friday, the 25th day of February, 2011.
Petitioner : 1) V.K. Narayanan,
Kaniyampathil House,
Kanjiram P.O, Kiliroor,
Kottayam.
2) Kunjumon K.N.,
--do—
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
reptd. by its Secretary.
2) The Asst. Engineer,
KSEB, Puncha Section,
Kumarakom.
3) Shibu,
Lineman, KSEB
Sub Engineer Office,
Thiruvarppu.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 20..10.2009 is as follows:
Petitioner is a domestic consumer of the second opposite party. Second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. Second petitioner as a means of self employment was conducting a tyre re-trading shop in the name and style as ‘SKV Tyres’ at Nagampadom, Kottayam. When the business of the second petitioner was become dull he transferred the business to the premises of his house. Second petitioner was conducting the business with the help of diesel engine. According to the petitioners they had taken a single light point to their business concern from the domestic connection. When the
petitioner proposed to start the business 3rd opposite party contacted the petitioner and demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/-. But the petitioner rejected the demand of the 3rd opposite party on the ground that he is not in need of any electricity for the conduct of his business concern.
-2-
According to the petitioner 3rd opposite party was not in good terms with the petitioner for not giving bribe to him. On 13..10..2009 in the absence of the 2nd petitioner officers of the opposite party conducted a surprise inspection in the house of the petitioner and has not find anything abnormal. Officials of opposite party forcibly procure certain signed blank papers from the first petitioner. On 15..10..2009 opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 1,20,,697/-. Petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on the said day itself due to threat of the opposite party that if the amount is not paid opposite party will initiate criminal proceedings against the first petitioner.
According to the petitioner act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to cancel the bill issued by opposite party for Rs. 1,20,697/-. Petitioner claims refund of Rs. 50,000/- with 24% interest. Petitioner claims Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party on 20..6..2009 an anonymous petition was received to the opposite party stating that the petitioners are unauthorizedly taking electricity for the conduct of their business concern. On 13..10..2009 as per the said complaint opposite party
conducted a surprise inspection. Opposite party find that petitioner is committing theft of electricity. Opposite party prepared a mahazar in the same day itself. On inspection it is found that petitioner is unauthorisedly indulging electricity from the domestic service connection, from the service wire, before it comes to the meter. With the help of the unauthorised electricity petitioner is conducting his business and running A/C attached in his house. According to opposite party disputed bill is issued legally. Further more, petitioner is admitting the theft and for avoiding the criminal case he had remitted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite party as compounding charges. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
-3-
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B5 documents on the side of the opposite parties and X1 report of Electrical Inspector.
Point No. 1
The disputed bill Dtd: 14..10..2009 is produced by the petitioner said document is marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 bill is issued as a penal bill for theft of energy committed by the petitioner Ext. A2 is the letter issued by the A.E to the petitioner. As per Ext. A2 second opposite party demanded the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compounding charges for the offence of theft. As per Ext. A3 petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 15..10..2009. Counsel for the petitioner vehumently argued that the amount as per Ext. A3 receipt was deposited under threat and compulsion of the opposite party that if the amount is not paid criminal prosecution will be initiated against the petitioner. According to the petitioner there is no theft of electricity and the issuance of the bill is as a result of vengeance of the 3rd opposite party with the petitioner. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove that there is vengeance between petitioner and 3rd opposite party. In order to substantiate that the petitioner had not committed theft he rely on report filed by the Deputy Electrical Inspector appointed by this forum, as per order in IA 798/2009. The report of the Deputy Electrical Inspector produced is marked as Ext. X1. In Ext. X1 report it is stated that at the time of inspection, no signs of taping and tampering seen on the service wire. So the counsel for the petitioner is depending on the report of electrical inspector for his argument. Admittedly inspection of the electrical inspector was on 4..11..2009. The detection of the theft is on 13..10..2009. So the electrical inspector inspected the site after 20 days of detection of theft. In our view
-4-
report of electrical inspector after a few days of detection of theft will not help the petitioner to prove that their is no theft of electricity. Opposite party produced the site mahazar duly signed by the first petitioner said document is marked as Ext. B2. From Ext. B2 mahazar it can be seen that case of the opposite party is true. Further more Ext. B5 letter is the voluntary disclosure of theft signed by the first petitioner. The said letter produced is marked as Ext. B5. As per Ext. B5 letter petitioner admitted theft of electricity and he further agreed that in future he will not indulge in illegal abstraction . Further more clause 52 (5) (v)of the KSEB terms and conditions of supply 2005 (as revised in 2007) states that deputy Chief Engineer of the concerned circle of the board in case of LT and HT consumer and Executive Engineer of the concerned division of the board in case of other consumers may accept from person who committed an offence of theft of energy sum of money by way of compounding for the offence as per section 152 of the act. As per section 52 (5) (vi) on payment of such sum of money in connection with the offence shall discharge the person forthwith and no other proceedings shall be instituted or continued against such consumer or person in any criminal court. In our view
by remitting the amount for compounding the offence it shall deemed to an acquittal within the meaning of section 300 of code of criminal procedure 1973 In our view by admitting the offence and by compounding the same petitioner is estopped from saying that he has not committed theft of energy In our view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is dismissed.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
-5-
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of February, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the Petitioner
Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 14..10..2009
Ext. A2: Letter Dtd: 14..10..2009 issued by the A.E KSEB Kumarakom to the first petitioner.
Ext. A3: Receipt Dtd: 15..10..2009
Documents for the opposite parties
Ext. B1: Copy of the complaint given to the A.E from a consumer Dt: 20..6..2009
Ext. B2: Site mahazar Dtd: 13..10..2009
Ext. B3: Bill Dtd: 14..10..2009
Ext. B4: Letter from A.E to the first petitioner Dtd: 14..10..2009
Ext. B5: Voluntary disclosure letter issued by the second petitioner to the opposite party
X1: Report of the Deputy Electrical Inspector, Kottayam.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Received on / Despatched on
