BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 282/1999 Filed on 11.06.1999 Dated : 27.02.2010 Complainant: Madavi Amma, Usha Nivas, Udiyankulangara, Arayoor P.O. (By adv. R. Jagadish Kumar) Opposite parties:
Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Udiyankulangara, Trivandrum District.
(By adv. K.P. Renadive) This O.P having been heard on 30.12.2009, the Forum on 27.02.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 1164 under Electrical Major Section, Udiyankulangara and the connection is under domestic category and that 2nd opposite party issued a notice dated 05.03.1999 to Mr. K. Krishna Pilla, the husband of the complainant stating that Mr. Krishna Pilla installed a pump set to his neighbouring property and the alleged electric connection was supplied from consumer No. 1164 by crossing a line. He was directed to pay Rs. 14,375/-. Again opposite party issued another notice dated 03.06.1999 to Mr. Krishna Pilla wherein the bill amount was reduced to Rs. 13,286/-. In the said notice it was stated that in case the said amount is not paid electric connection will be disconnected. The complainant denied the allegation that electric connection was supplied to the pump set. It is submitted by the complainant that there was no mis-utilisation of energy. Neither inspection nor meter reading was taken by opposite party to arrive the conclusion regarding the energy consumed by the consumer. The procedure adopted by the opposite party is wrong. Excess demand bill has no basis and complainant is not liable to pay the said amount. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint to order that complainant is not liable to pay the amount covered by the notice dated 05.03.1999 and 03.06.1999 along with compensation. Opposite party filed version contending that consumer No. 1164 is registered in the name of Sri. Krishna Pillai, that complainant is having no locus standi to institute this complaint, that the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thiruvananthapuram got a complaint stating that the consumer No. 1164 is using electrical energy for operating a pump set installed in the adjacent property, thereon the Deputy Chief Engineer called for a report on the complaint from the 2nd opposite party, that the 2nd opposite party inspected the premises and convinced that the consumer has extended supply to a pump set installed in neighbouring plot which is separated from the premises of the consumer by a compound wall and a pathway through underground, that accordingly 2nd opposite party has issued a notice to the consumer for removing the unauthorised extension immediately and to remit an amount of Rs. 14,375/- being the charges for taking unauthorised extension to the extend of 1 KW for a period of 6 months. Mr. Krishna Pillai submitted an appeal petition before the Executive Engineer and requested to reduce the amount accordingly, thereafter the charge was revised by the 2nd opposite party to Rs. 13,286/-. Consumer is liable to pay charges in addition to the normal current charges. Opposite parties have acted according to the rules and regulations of the Board. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the complainant has locus standi to file this complaint? Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount claimed by the opposite parties vide notice dated 05.03.1999 & 08.06.1999? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation? If so, at what amount?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite parties. 2nd opposite party has filed affidavit and Exts. D1 to D6 were marked. Points (i) to (iv):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant is a consumer of the opposite party vide consumer No. 1164 under Electrical Major Section, Udiyankulangara, and that the connection is under domestic category. It has also been the case of the complainant that the 2nd opposite party issued a notice dated 05.03.1999 to Mr. K. Krishna Pillai, the husband of the complainant, stating that he had installed a pump set to his neighbouring property taking electric connection from the aforesaid consumer No. 1164 by crossing a Lane, for which he was directed to pay Rs. 14,375/-. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite parties had reduced the said amount to Rs. 13,286/- vide another notice dated 08.06.1999. It is pleaded in the complaint that complainant never utilised energy in violation of rules regarding supply of electricity. Opposite parties raised a contention in the version that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint since the aforesaid connection stands in the name of the husband of the complainant. It is to be noted that after filing the complaint, the complainant had filed a petition to amend the 2nd para of the complaint by adding “Consumer No. 1164 which stood in the name of the husband of the complainant Krishna Pillai and the complaint filed by the complainant as beneficiary of Sri. Krishna Pillai”. In the affidavit also complainant has admitted that consumer No. 1164 stands in her husband's name. In her cross examination complainant has deposed that her husband is laid up, he is unwell for more than 10 years and that the property in which the house in respect of which consumer No. 1164 allotted is belonged to her. Opposite party has no case that the complainant is not the wife of Mr. Krishna Pillai. Ext. P3 is the copy of the receipt for Rs. 272/- issued by the KSEB in the name of the complainant. In view of the above, we find the complaint is filed by the complainant as a beneficiary, and as such the complainant has locus standi to file this complaint. Ext. P1 is the copy of the letter dated 05.03.1999 from the 2nd opposite party to K. Krishna Pillai stating that his premises was inspected on 04.03.1999, and on inspection it was found that he had given electric connection unauthorisedly to an outside pump set installed in adjacent property from the premises of the consumer and he was directed to remove the unauthorised extension immediately and to remit an amount of Rs. 14,375/-, being the charges for taking unauthorised extension. Ext. P2 is the copy of letter dated 03.06.1999 from the 2nd opposite party to K. Krishna Pillai informing him of the revised rate of Rs. 13,286/-. In her cross examination, on being asked whether she would know one Satheesh Chandran she replied that she would know him and he is residing in a house next to her, that his sister constructed a building near to complainant's premises and she sought permission of the complainant to draw an electric line to her house across the property of the complainant, that complainant did not give the consent even requested by Muraleedharan, the Engineer from the Board. Complainant in her cross examination, has deposed further that it is after two weeks from the said incident opposite parties had issued the aforesaid notice. Ext. D4 is the copy of the letter dated 10.03.1999 from K. Krishna Pillai, to the Executive Engineer. In her cross examination, when shown Ext. D4 letter to PW1, she has deposed that Ext. D4 was written by her husband as suggested by the Engineer concerned and the same was handed over to KSEB by her. PW1 has further added that her husband was forced to write Ext. D4 letter as the Engineer concerned agreed to reduce the amount mentioned in the notice. PW1 has also identified Ext. D5 notice and stated that the same was written under the threat of disconnection of electric connection when complainant's daughter's marriage was around the corner. Opposite parties have not furnished any materials to show the spot inspection or mahazar showing the nature of unauthorised extension and in whose presence such inspection was done by the opposite party, nor the person who inspected the premises has been examined as witnesses nor adduced alternative evidences to corroborate the contention of the version that the Assistant Executive Engineer inspected the premises and convinced that consumer has extended supply to a pump set installed in the neighbouring plot which is separated from the premises of the consumer by a compound wall and pathway through underground. Opposite party failed to establish the reason for issuing a notice for Rs. 14,375/- and thereafter for Rs. 13,286/-. Opposite party has no case of theft of electric energy by the complainant nor has opposite party alleged that complainant is a defaulter in payment of current charge. Though complainant has admitted ½ HP pump set in her cross examination, the onus is on the opposite party to prove that the complainant has unauthorisedly used electrical energy for operating a pump set installed in the adjacent property. Opposite parties failed to establish their version by cogent and clinching evidence. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that the issue of Ext. P1 and P2 notices to consumer No. 1164 is devoid of bonafides as such we find complainant is not liable to pay the amount as stated in the said notices. Deficiency in service proved. In the result, complaint is allowed. It is hereby declared that complainant is not liable to pay the amount claimed by opposite parties vide notices (Ext. P1 & P2) dated 05.03.1999 and 08.06.1999. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 27th day of February 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb O.P. No. 282/1999 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Madhavi Amma. P II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of letter dated 05.03.1999 P2 - Photocopy of letter dated 03.06.1999 from 2nd opposite party P3 - Photocopy of interim receipt.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Copy of ledger D2 - Copy of letter dated 15.09.1998 D3 - Copy of letter dated 05.03.1999 D4 - Copy of letter dated 10.03.1999 D5 - Copy of letter addressed to opposite party. D6 - Copy of letter dated 03.06.1999
PRESIDENT
| | HONORABLE President, President | HONORABLE Sri G. Sivaprasad, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt. Beena Kumari. A, Member | | 
