CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

                                                                                                                              Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.104/10

 

Saturday the 24^th day of September, 2011

 

Petitioner                                                          : Anilkumar,

                                                                         Thannippallil House,

                                                                           Thidanadu, Kottayam Dist.

                                                                           (Adv. Benny Joseph)

 

                                                                      Vs.

Opposite party                                     :              K.S.E.B,

                                                                         Vyduthi Bhavan,

                                                                           Trivandrum Rep.by its

                                                                           Secretary.

 

                                                                        2) Asst.Engineer,

                                                                            Section Office,

                                                                            K.S.E.B.,

                                                                            Pinnakkanadu.

 

 

 

             Case of the petitioner, filed on 13/04/10, is as follows:-

 

            Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board with vide consumer No.4340. Petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacturing ploythene Pipes under the name “Amila Plastics”. According to the petitioner he is conducting the said business as a self employment, for earning his livelihood. Consumption of electricity in the petitioner’s unit is high in seasons and low in off seasons.   In the mid night of 7/4/10 the officials of A.P.T.S along with the 2^nd opposite party entered into the unit of the petitioner while the petitioner was sleeping in the nearby residence. After the arrival they informed the petitioner that they got an information that petitioner is committing theft of electricity in the unit. There upon the petitioner requested the officials to conduct an inspection in the unit. Accordingly the officials of the A.P.T.S along with the 2^nd opposite party started inspection in the said unit. During inspection, one of the officials moved towards the jeep, in which the officials arrived, in the unit and took 3 pieces of black copper cables from the jeep and carried the same into the unit. Immediately officials moved towards place out side the unit where all the four aluminium cables including the neutral line from the electric post are seen joined. Further the inspection team moved towards the godown of the petitioner’s unit and took a wooden ladder used by the petitioner for collecting materials from the godown which is situated at a height of 14 feet from the floor. 2^nd opposite party prepared a mahazar and directed the petitioner to put his signature on the mahazar. Petitioner signed on the mahazar under coercion. On the same occasion the 2^nd opposite party prepared a provisional bill for Rs.3,42,271/- and handed over the same to the petitioner. On the same occasion 2^nd opposite party disconnected the electric connection to the petitioner’s premises. According to the petitioner the allegation of theft is a looked up   story. So, he prays for cancellation of the bill dtd 8/4/10 for Rs. 3,42,271/-. Petitioner also prays for mandatory injunction to effect reconnection of electricity, petitioner claims Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

            Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. The APTS team constituted under the 1^st opposite party has conducted an inspection in the petitioner’s premises and detected theft of electricity. The Thidanadu Police has investigated the matter and registered a crime against the petitioner with vide FIR No.116/10 under Section 135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The trial of the offences is going on in the Special Courts constituted for the trial of aforesaid offences. Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases held that theft cases should not be entertained by CDRF. Electric connection to the petitioner’s premises is under the category of industrial connection under LT-IV tariff and his permitted connected load is 41 KW. The APTS under Kottayam unit and another unit under Thiruvalla unit along with police officers from Thidanadu Police station were among the squad members who conducted inspection. Opposite party deny the allegation that one of the members of the squad has taken 3 pieces of copper cables from their jeep. Petitioner’s allegation that the wooden ladder was not used for theft of electricity is denied by the opposite party. The ladder was seized as a material object and mahazar was prepared. According to the opposite party petitioner cut open the service wire which was connected to the meter board at a point that goes into the factory. The cut opened service cable was concealed inside the wall by using bricks. The insulation of the cable was removed and from this point the petitioner committed theft of electricity by using wires directly without recording the power in the electric meter. The wires used for committing theft and the wooden ladder used for climbing to the tampering point of the service wire were seized by the squad and described in the mahazar. All the procedures and visuals of the inspection of the squad were recorded in a digital camera and photo video recorder. The site mahazar was prepared and a copy of the mahazar was issued to the petitioner. A provisional bill was prepared according to the rules and directions by the inspection squad by observing all formalities. According to the opposite party the bill issued to the petitioner is legal and proper and there is no deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for dismissal if their costs.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite

party?

ii           Reliefs and costs?

            Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext.A1 to A6 documents on the side of the petitioner, Ext.B1 to B8 documents on the side of opposite party.  Deposition of PW1, DW1 and Dw2.

            The crux of the case of the petitioner is that bill dated 8/4/10 for Rs.3,42,271/- issued to the petitioner is not legal and proper and is to be cancelled. Copy of the disputed bill is marked as Ext.A1 and the original of said bill produced by the opposite party is marked as Ext.B3. Ext.B3 bill is issued as a provisional bill under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003. According to the opposite party petitioner was committing theft of electricity. On 7/4/10, APTS under Kottayam and Thiruvalla unit along with Police officer from Thidanadu Police Station inspected the premises of the petitioner and find that the petitioner is committing theft of electricity. Copy of the mahazar prepared on 7/4/10 produced is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is prepared by DW1. DW1 was examined before the Forum to prove Ext.B1. Petitioner while giving evidence as PW1 has not denied the preparation of Ext.B1 and about his signature in B1. As per Ext.B1 it can be seen that petitioner is prepared to commit theft of electricity. In Ext.B1 opposite party alleges that the service wire which was connected to the meter board was cut open at a point that goes into the factory. The cut opened service cable was concealed inside the wall by using bricks. Insulation of the cable was removed from that point. According to the opposite party the petitioner is preparing to commit theft of electricity by using wires directly without recording the power in electric meter. But nothing was brought out by the petitioner to disbelieve DW1, PW2 and Ext.B1 Mahazar. Petitioner has not proved by any cogent evidence that their is previous enimity between the petitioner and opposite party. Opposite party produce a copy of FIR and said document is marked as Ext.B7. From Ext.B7 it can be seen that the Thidanadu Police registered a crime under Section 135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act 2003. The said case is under trial in the Special Courts constituted for the trial offences referred to in Section 135 to 139 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003. In our view since trial is going on the Fora is not going into the merit of Commission or preparation for commission of offences of theft. The Fora is only concerned to look into whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in issuing the disputed bill. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that even it is presumed that the allegation of the opposite party is true it will not attract theft under Section 135 of Electricity Act. Because theft of electricity is defined as who ever dishonestly (a) taps makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead under ground or under water line or cable or service wire or service facility of licensee (b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, or otherwise a manner whereby electricity is stolen(c) damages or destroys an electric meter or destroyed as interfere with proper accurate metering of electricity. So according to the petitioner if it is proved that petitioner is dishonestly taps service facility of a licensee then only offence of ‘theft’ is attracted. But as far as Fora is concerned the question of civil liability of the petitioner with regard to unauthorised use of electricity is to be looked into. Section 126 of Electricty Act 2003 states that if on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipment if it is found any devices connected for indulging unauthorised use of electricity he shall be assessed under Section 126(5) of Electricity Act.

            While scrutinizing evidence of PW1. Petitioner’s definite case is that the cut open portion in the service wire is occurred due to the broken of a fall of branch of a jack tree                7 years back which was standing near by the business concern of petitioner. But nothing was placed on record by the petitioner to prove the said contention. B6 series is the copy of C.D recorded during inspection concerned. Opposite party objected making of the C.D. Petitioner as PW1 during cross examination admitted recording of the inspection conducted by opposite party in a video. On perusal of B6 documents it can be seen that their is some preparations made by the petitioner for unauthorised use of electricity. PW1 also admitted the concealment of cut opened service cable using bricks. According to PW1 it is done by K.S.E.B authority. Counsel for the opposite party put a definite question Insulation CÃm-Xn-cp-¶m A]-I-S-am-sW¶p \n§Ä¡p-tXm-¶n-tbm( Q ) ( A ) F\nbv¡p A§s\ tXm¶n-bn-Ã. Further in page 5 PW1 further deposed that Rm³ tcJm-a-q-eT tI_nÄ amdm³ ]cmXn \ÂIn-bn-Ã. So from the depositions of PW1 it can be inferred that case of the opposite party that petitioner is prepared to indulging in unauthorised use of electricity is true.

            In our view from the available evidence including Ext.B1 mahazar deposition of PW1, Dw1 & DW2 we come to a conclusion that petitioner is in unauthorized use of electricity and is liable for an assessment under Section 126 Act of Electricity 2003. So petitioner failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1, petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances no costs and compensation is ordered.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24^th day of September, 2011.

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-Copy of the bill dtd 8/4/10 for Rs.3,42,271

Ext.A2-Copy of notice dtd 8/4/10

Ext.A3-Copy of mahazar

Ext.A4-Copy of letter dtd 8/4/10 issued by AE to the consumer

Ext.A5-Copy of calculation statement

Ext.A6-Copy of the receipt dtd 8/4/10

Ext.B1-Copy of mahazar

Ext.B2-Copy of letter dtd 8/4/10

Ext.B3-Bill dtd 8/4/10

Ext.B4-Copy of calculation statement

Ext.B5-Letter dtd 8/4/10

Ext.B6-CD(3 nos)

Ext.B7 –copy of FIR

Ext.B8-Photos

PW1-Anilkumar

DW1-G.Sukumaran Nair

DW2-Anishkumar P

 

 By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.