SMT. G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT.

            This complaint has been filed by the complainant Dr. Sathyaseelan claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and praying to setaside the extra bill  for Rs.1269/- issued by the 3^rd opp.party on the basis of the mahazar prepared by 4^th opp.party and for restraining 3^rd opp.party from disconnecting the electric connection for not paying the bill dated 24..8..2009.

          Complainant’s case is that the complainant is residing in Savithrinikethan as a tenant of Stephen, brother of  Thankachan, Chittoor Veedu, Thazhavamuri, that even though Stephen purchased the building and premises from Thankachan the Consumer NO.5130[service connection] is in the name of Thankachan, that the complainant has at first remitted Rs.116/- including disconnection fees Rs.30/-, that the complainant is a  A class Medical  Practitioner  and residing there along with his family consisting of his mother  aged 76 , wife and children aged 13 and 11 and a home nurse to look after the mother, that for running hospital also in the same house for taking electric connection he obtained an application form from 3^rd opp.party’s office on 24..6..2009, that in the premises a board “Savithri Nikethan Medical Trust Hospital” also installed, that meanwhile on  13..8..2009 evening  a group of persons  headed by 4^th opp.party came there and 4^th opp.party examined the rooms one by one, that at that time the complainant’s mother and the home  nurse alone were there in the house and the complainant and his wife were in Mavelikkara  MACT, that the examination of rooms by  4^th opp.party in a cinema style  caused mental pain  to the mother of the complainant, that meanwhile 4^th opp.party prepared a mahazar in which  home nurse  put her signature as  witness without reading and understanding the mahazar, that thereafter on 17..8..2009, 3^rd opp.party issued an extra bill for Rs.1269/- intimating that the service connection will be disconnected if the  amount not remitted on or before 24..8..2009, that against that the complainant submitted an objection before the 2^nd opp.party on 22.8..2009, that the landlord  had under taken  to separate the building in to   two parts so as to enable the complainant to start a hospital also there and for obtaining sanction the complainant has approached the Gramapanchayath, that  it is meanwhile the surprise visit occurred and hence this complaint praying for compensation for his mother’s mental agony, to setaside the extra bill, to restrain the 3^rd opp.party from disconnecting the electric connection and for cost of the proceedings.

          Opp.parties filed version contenting that, they have-not given electric connection neither to the complainant nor to his landlord Stephen as per Consumer NO.5130, that the above electric connection was given to Thankachan, Chittoor Veedu, Thazhava South, that the allegation that Thankachan sold the premises along with the right to use Consumer NO.5130 not  intimated to the 3^rd opp.party’s office, that it is against    Clause 19[3] of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, that on 24..6..2009 complainant obtained an application from 3^rd opp.party’s office as per the receipt No.40355, that the complainant has not informed the 3^rd opp.party about the running of hospital in that premises or about taking electric connection  to the hospital, that the meter reader recorded in the Abnormality Register that Consumer No.5130 which is a domestic connection is misusing for running a hospital, that on the basis of that, 3^rd opp.party along with Senior Superintendent and Sub Engineer went to the premises in Department jeep on  13..8..2009 at about 3 p.m.,, that at that time complainant was not there, that there was a board near the gate “Savithrinikethan Hospital”, that on entering the hospital a nurse came out from the room of the doctor, that the mother also came out, that the electric fittings were inspected in the presence of the nurse, that the opp.parties  have not created any situation there as alleged in the complaint, that on inspection it was detected that  2070 watts was in use instead of allotted connected load 180 watts and so a provisional  bill for Rs.1269/- issued to the Consumer Thankachan, Chittoor Veedu, Thazhava South, that neither Stephen nor the complainant had any right to use electricity from Consumer NO.5130 and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to the opp.parties.

The 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 PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P7

For the opp.party DW.1 was examined.

THE POINTS:

          Admittedly the 3^rd opp.party’s  office given service connection [Consumer No.5130] to one Thankachan, Chittoor Veedu, Thazhava South and now the complainant is residing with his family in that building as a tenant of one Stephen.   According to the complainant Thankachan transferred the property along with the building to Stephen and from him he took the building on rent for the purpose of residence and for running a hospital and for starting hospital proceedings were going on.   Ext.P1 is the Photocopy of rent deed  dated 10..6..2009.  In the rent deed itself it is stated that hk-Xnbm-bpw Bip-]-{Xn-bm-bpw D]-tbm-Kn-t¡­ Bh-i-y-¯n-te-¡m-bn , Ext P2 is a certificate issued from Thazhava Grama Panchaytath to substantiate that the complainant is residing in the above building , Ext.P3 is receipt dated 24..7..2009 issued from KSEB., Electrical Section Manapally, in the name of Thankachan.D [Consumer NO.5130]`.  It shows remittance  of  Rs.116/- towards EXCC and RF [full], Ext. P4  is an application form bearing No.40355 dated 24..8..2009 and receipt for Rs.10/- from Electrical Section, Manappally, Ext. P5 is the mahazar prepared by the KSEB Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Manappally dated 13..8..2009, Ext.P6. -  is proceedings of the Assessing Officer and Asst. Engineer dated 17..8..2009 requesting to remit Rs.1269/- on or before 24..8..2009, Ext.P7 is  a photocopy of objection to that.  Complainant was examined as PW.1 One Chellappan was examined as PW.2 and 2^nd opp.party  Asst. Exe. Engineer was examined as DW.1.

          As we have already mentioned the specific case of the complainant is that he took the building on rent from Stephen for residential purpose and for running a hospital  therein and after starting residence he was making preparation for starting the hospital and meanwhile on 13..8..2009 the 4^th opp.party and some other persons entered there and examined the premises and prepared Ext.P5 mahazar and at that time only his age old mother and one home nurse were there and it caused mental agony to his mother and hence this complaint. But the arguments put forward b y the learned counsel appearing for the opp.parties is two fold.   The first argument is that the service connection was given to Thankachan, Chittoor Veedu, Thazhava South and the alleged transfer of the house along with the service connection to Stephen and that the complainant took the premises on rent from Stephen not informed to the opp.party’s office and it is against clause 19 [3] of Kerala State Electricity Board terms and conditions of Supply 2005.   Admittedly complainant has purchased Ext.P4 application form only from the 3^rd opp.party’s office on 24..6..2009 and not intimated the above facts to the 3^rd opp.party’s office  Clause 19[3] of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 reads  as; “When there is transfer of ownership or right of occupancy of the premises, the registered consumer shall intimate the transfer of right of occupancy of the premises within 7 days to the Asst. Engineer/Asst. Exe. Engineer concerned.  On such intimation having been received, the service shall be disconnected, after giving notice to the occupants.  If the transferee desires to enjoy service connection, he shall pay the dues to the Board and apply for transfer of ownership of service connection within 15 days and execute fresh agreement and furnish additional security”.  Admittedly the complainant took the house  on rent on 10..6..2009.  It follows that neither  the registered consumer  nor the transferee intimated the transfer of right of occupancy of the premises to the 3^rd opp.party.

          The next argument put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the opp.party is that the complainant has not informed the 3^rd opp.party about the running of the hospital on that premises or about taking electric connection to the hospital and on the other hand the complainant was utilizing the domestic connection for running the  hospital also.  According to the opp.parties the meter reader recorded  the same in the abnormality register and it is why 4^th opp.party along with the Senior Superintendent and Sub Engineer went to the premises on 13..8..2009 at about 3 p.m. and examined the premises and prepared Ext.P5 mahazar, Ext.P5 is the copy of Mahazar given to the complainant at the premises.   Admittedly during the time of inspection complainant and his wife were not there but his mother and  a nurse was there and in their presence they verified the premises and detected  that 2070 watts was in use instead of allotted connected load 180 watts.  In gate itself  a board “Savithrinikethan Hospital” seen installed.  It is admitted by the complainant also.   According to  him he has took the premises on rent for residential purpose and for running a hospital and he was making preparations for the same and not started the hospital as alleged..  In the mahazar it is reported that “Sn {]an-k-kn Xmsg ]d-bp¶ D]-I-c-W-§Ä{]-hÀ¯n-¡p-¶-Xmbn  ImWp-¶p.  CFL 8, Tube5,Plug 6, Fan 5, Light 3, T.V.1, Fridge 1, Mixi 1, Motor 1 Sn premises Bip-]-{Xn-bpsS Bh-i-y-¯-n\mbn D]-tbmKn-¡p¶p F¶p t_m²-y-s¸-«p-tcm-Kn-Isf InS¯n NnIn-Õn-¡p-¶-Xn-\mbn dqap-I--fn I«n-ep-IÄ InS-¡p-¶-Xmbn ImW-s¸-«p..” According to the opp.party the nurse came out from the room of the doctor.  But according to the complainant she is the home nurse.  She is witness No.2 in Ext.P5.  In that it is written as Pushpa, Nurse, Savithrinikethan  Aspathri.  She is the best witness to prove as to whether the premises is used for hospital or not   But she was not examined before the Forum.  So the contention that she is the home nurse is only to be discarded .  The complainant’s mother also not examined before the Forum to substantiate as to whether the allegations are true.  The deposition of PW.2 is of no help to the complainant    Apart from the interested testimony of PW.1 there is no evidence to substantiate his allegations.  On the other hand on the basis of the mahazar, opp.party issued Ext.P6 bill, Section 126 [1] of the Electricity Act 2003  reads as “ If  on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or  after  inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.” Sec.126 [2]  of  the  Electricity Act  2003 reads as “ The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.” So there is no irregularity in issuing Ext.P6 bill to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties and the complaint is only to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed  but without costs.

Dated  this the  28^th     day of May, 2012.

                                                I n d e x

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Sathyaseelan

PW.2. - Chellappan

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Rent deed

P2. - Certificate issued by Thazhava Grama Panchayat dt. 23.10..09

P3. – Receipt dated 24..7..2009

P4. – Receipt dated 24..6..2009

P5. – Mahazar

P6. – Penal bill dated 17..8..2009

P7. - Letter

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. – Abdul Samad