Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board. Accoroding to the petitioner from February 2000 on wards some renovation works are going on in the kitchen of the petitioner. On 22..2..2008 second opposite party and other officials conducted site inspection in the premises of the petitioner and assessed an amount of Rs. 6,101/- and issued penal bill to the petitioner. As per the assessment it is seen that petitioneer had used electricity other than the purpose for which the connection was given. Petitioner states that he had not used any electricity other than domestic purpose consumption is increased because of the painting works in his house and use of the electric heater. Petitioner states that he had also remited additional amount for the additional electricity consumed. Petitioner states that issuance of bill for an

-2-

amount of Rs. 6,101/- dtd: 29..2..2008 is without any basis and is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, he prays for cancellation of the demand notice dtd: 29..2..2008, issued by the second opposite party and also pray for restraining the opposite party from disconnecting the electrict connection along with cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party Sub Engineer of Electrical Section Ayarkunnam, who is in charge of the said area, conducted an inspection at the premises of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was using 2250 W of unauthorised energy site mahazar was prepared in presence of petitioner and bill was issued as per section 126 (1) (5) of Electricity Act 2003. According to opposite party bill was issued as per rules and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determination sare:

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

ii) Reliefs and costs.

Evidence in this case consists affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite parties.

Point No. 1

Opposite party produced a mahazar prepared by the officials of the opposite party and said document is marked as Ext. B1. In Ext. B1 the petitioner was signed acknowledging the preparation of the mahazar. In Ext. B1 it was stated that there was

-3-

some unauthorised construction going on in the kitchen of the petitioner. The counsel for the opposite party argued that Ext. B1 is a fabricated document made for the purpose of the case. We are of the opinion that there is no reason to disbelieve the officials of the KSEB and further more petitioner has not attributed any malafide intention of the officials of the opposite party with regard to the preparation of mahazar. In Jharkhand State Electricity Board Vs. Anvar Ali reported in 2008 CTJ page 837 the Hon'ble National Commission stated that before entertaining a complaint before theForum the petitioner shall remit half of the assessed amount as per Section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act. Section 127 (2) of Electricity Act states that no appeal against an order of assessment under sub section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal to ½ of the assessed amount is deposited before the authority. Here the petitioner has not complied section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act.. Further more the opposite party produced copy of spot bill ledger and the said document is marked as Ext. B2. From Ext. B2 it can be seen that the consumption of electrical energy of the petitioner is high during 22..2..2007, 23..4..2008 and 23..6..2008 when compa

pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of December, 2008.

red to the electrical energy consumption of other period. So, we are of the opinion that from Ext. B2 we can infer that the case of the opposite party is much probable. So, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in issuing disputed bill. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of the findings in point No. 1, petition is to be dismissed.Considering the

facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and

-4-

008.