Complaint seeking restoration of electric connection quashing bills, compensation costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is running a motor vehicle service station in the name and style Ananda Auto Service in South Paravoor since 1984. The 2nd opp.party is a regular customer of the complainant and he used to bring his personal vehicle and departmental vehicle for servicing in the complainant’s service station. Though the usual rates for servicing vehicle is Rs.200/- the complainant would charge only Rs.50/- from the 2nd opp.party because of there personal relationship. While so, in the absence of the complainant one of his employees happened to collect Rs.200/- from the 2nd opp.party for the service his personal vehicle and thereafter the relationship between the complainant and the 2nd opp.party became strained. On 22.8.2005the driver of the 2nd opp.party brought the Jeep bearing Reg.No.KL.02-3077 to the complainant’s service centre and accordingly the complainant after servicing and applying the grease charged Rs.300/-. The amount was not paid even after repeated requests and finally after 3months on 23.11.2005 the 2nd opp.party issued a cheque for Rs.300/- of SBT Chathannoor before the issuance of the cheque on 18.11.2005 the 2nd opp.party issued the complainant a bill for Rs.2235/- which was paid by the complainant on 18.11.2005 even though the due date of payment of the bill was 25.11.2005. On 19.11.2005 in the absence of the complainant the 2nd opp.party along with three of his subordinates trespassed into the complainant’s establishment opened and damaged the consumer Meter No.4350 under the guise of examination without complying the proper precautionary measures stipulated in the Electricity Manual and exposed it open to cause severe electric shock to the complainant and his workers.. Upon the complainant’s enquiry in the office of the 2nd opp.party nothing was told to him but at about 1.30 pm on the same day, the 2nd opp.party came to the complainant’s service station and disconnected the electric supply to the complainant’s service station and dismantled the electricity meter and taken away the same. Though the complainant filed an application for restoration of the connection the same was not restored. The complainant thereupon filed complaint to the Asst. Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer, Major Electrical Section Chathannoor, the first opp.party, the chairman KSEB, Minister for Electricity, Chief Minister and the Local MLA but all in vein The 2nd opp.party who some how got knowledge that the complainant is proceeding against him prepared and issued a demand notice along with the covering letter dated 25.11.2005 and sent the same to the complainant by registered post and the complainant who was under treatment in Sheeba Clinic had accepted the same on 2.12.2005. As per the demand notice the complainant was to remit Rs.22142/- on or before 21.11.1005. On perusal of the bill it can be seen that it was prepared to justify the illegal actions of the 2nd opp.party. The demand notice did not either mention on what count and shy the complainant had to pay the amount and therefore, the demand notice is liable to be quashed. Due to the non functioning of his establishment the machinery worth thousands of Rupees installed in the establishment is damaged. The complainant and his family earn their livelihood from the income derived from the establishment . He sustained huge loss so also the employees in the establishment. The act of the opp.parties are illegal, arbitrary and clearly amount to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed a joint version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2[1][d] [II] of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is a consumer bearing No.4350 at Electrical Section, Paravoor. As part of the surprise inspection the Section Squad led by the Assistant Engineer inspected the premises of Consumer No,4350 on 19.11.2005 at 11 a.m.. The inspection was conducted in the presence of the complainant it was noticed that the security seals of the energy meter was destroyed and seen clear marks on the counter wheel of the meter it was due to the regular manual operation after opening the meter. All these officials convinced the matter to the consumer also. The Assistant Engineer prepared a site mahazar but the consumer refused to sign the same. As the theft of energy was detected the supply was disconnected and after informing the matter to the consumer as per clause 43 of conditions of supply Regulations. Then the energy meter was taken under the safe custody on 19.11.2005 itself. An assessment bill amounting to Rs.22,142/- was prepared and attempted to serve the same to the consumer. Since he refused to receive the same it was forwarded to him registered post on 25.11.2005. On 22.8.2005 the Department jeep No.Kl.2.0377 attached to Electrical Section, Paravoor was sent to the Complainant’s Service Station for servicing and greasing. They have charged Rs.300/- for the work and issued bill for the same. The bill was forwarded through the Assistant Exe. Engineer and payment was arranged as per the cheque No.180288 dt. 25.10.2005. As the proprietor has not collected the cheque from the Division Office, the driver of Departmental Jeep was entrusted to handover the cheque to the complainant. A spot bill for November 2005 was issued to the consumer on 18.11.2005 and he remitted the amount of Rs.2,235/- As theft of energy was detected the supply was disconnected immediately and energy meter was taken under safe custody as there was chance to destroy the evidence. On 21, 22 and 25th November 2005, the consumer approached the Section Office and requested to reconnect the service without making any payment. On all these occasions the officials informed him about out assessed bill but he refused to receive it. The inspection was conducted not due to any personal vendetta and anger towards the consumer. A series of inspections were conducted during November 2005 and six theft cases were detected by the Section Squad . In all these case the assessment bills were issued. The consumer herein defaulted payment of bill. The disconnection was due to detection of theft energy and as per Rule 43 of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy the consumer is bound to remit the amount. The loss damages etc if it all caused is due to the acts of the consumer and opp.party is not bound to make good the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P7 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marked. POINTS: The complainant’s case is that the 2nd opp.party out of personal vengeance towards him for claiming charges for servicing his private vehicle initiated false case against him and the electric supply to his service station was disconnected. The definite contention of the opp.party is that the complainant who is the owner of service station has illegally extracted electric energy which was detected during the surprise inspection and therefore the electric meter, the security seal was destroyed and which was having marks of tampering was dismantled and taken into custody as per Ext. D1 mahazar. According to the opp.party is that there is no provision to sent electric meters for examination by the Electrical Inspector in theft cases and the complainant has not taken any steps to send the meter seized as per Ext. D1 to the Electrical Inspector if he was aggrieved. The complainant has not produced any authority to the contrary of the KSEB terms and conditions of Supply 2005 before the Forum.. The veracity of Ext. D1 is seriously assailed. It is contended that DW.1 through whom it was proved was not present when the same was prepared and she has attested the true copy of the mahazar without seeing the same. As the same time the version of PW.1 regarding the mahazar and the marks in the meter also cannot be relied on as he was admittedly not present when Ext. D1 was prepared and meter dismantled. The conduct of the complainant in not taking steps to send the meter for examination by Electrical Inspector is also suspicious. Even assuming that Ext. D1 is not acceptable Ext. D2 register would show that there is considerable difference in consumption of electricity prior to the dismantling of existing meter on 19.11..05 and subsequent to installation of new meter. When the prior reading was around 200-250 units the subsequent reading comes to 500-800 units and the complainant has no explanation for such glaring difference in the reading and it lent support to the contention of the opp.party that there was illegal extraction of electrical energy. Another contention of the complainant is that no notice was given though Rule 44 of the condition supply of Electrical energy stipulates 24 hours notice. According to opp.party under Sec. 135 [1 A] of Electricity Act they are empowered to disconnect the supply forthwith on detection of theft. Sec. 135 [1A] read as follows “ Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity. So the contention that 24 hours notice was mandatory is unsustainable. Apart from that Sec. 44 of KSEB Terms and conditions of supply 2005 does not prescribe any such period. Another contention of the complainant is that the opp.party 2 has acted so as to wreck vengeance on him for collecting actual charges from opp.party 2 for servicing his private vehicle and departmental vehicle. One is at a loss to understand why the 2nd opp.party should demand discount towards service charge of the departmental vehicle as the service charges for the same is being paid by the KSEB. PW.1 himself has admitted in cross examination that he received a cheque for Rs.300/- for servicing the jeep of KSEB which shows no discount as contended was given. There is no material to show that the private car of opp.party 2 was serviced giving any discount.. Other than the oral assertions of PW.1, the complainant has not examined any of the employees who were present at the time when opp.party 2 dismantled the tampered meter and the uncorroborated evidence of PW.1 cannot be safely relied on as he was admittedly absent at the time [para 5 complaint]. With regard to the serving of the personal car of opp.party 2 and collecting Rs.200/- by his employees also the only evidence is that of PW.1 who was not present at that time also. The detailed bill for the same is also not forthcoming. According to the opp.parties the car bearing Reg.No.KL.2591 does not belong to the AE Ajilal as contented and no material is produced to disprove that contention. No material worth believable is forthcoming to establish the alleged strained relationship between PW.1 and opp.party 2. The learned counsel for opp.party would argue that on the particular day the inspection party detected theft of electrical energy in many places in the locality and not in the complainant’s service station alone and it is not disputed. So the allegation of the complainant that opp.party 2 acted illegally due to personal vendetta is unsustainable. As already pointed out consumption of electricity in the service station of the complainant prior to 19.11.2005 and subsequent to that date evidenced by Ext.D2 will lent support to the case of opp.parties that there was illegal extraction of electrical energy by the complainant. In these circumstances it cannot be said that Ext.P1 bill is illegal or arbitrary. From the evidence now before us we hold that the complainant failed to establish that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 21ST day of July, 2010. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainants. PW.1. - Salimkumar List of documents for the complainant P1. – Bill dated 18.11.2005 P1.[a] – Receipt P2. – complaint dt. 21.11.2005 to the Paravoor Police P3. – Complaint dt. 25.11.2005 to the Electricity Board Engineer P4. – Invoice dt. 25.11.2005 P5. – Invoice and bill dated 18.11.2005 P6. – Receipts dt.9.12.2005 P7. – Counter foil List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Kala.P List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Mahazar D2.- Register of spot billing from 1/2005 to 9/2006 | 
