KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL CMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 200/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 5.6.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The Kerala State Electricity Board, : APPELLANTS Rep. by its Secretary, Trivandrum. 2. The Asst. Ex.Engineer, K.S.E.B., Gandhi Nagar, Kottayam. 3. The Asst. Engineer, K.S.E.B., Electrical Punja Section, Kottayam. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. Shaji Abraham, : RESPONDENT Kunnathil House, Chengalam South.P.O., Kottayam. (By Adv.T.L.Sreeram) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 13th January, 2006 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.176/2005. The above complaint was filed against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in issuing Ext.A4(a) demand notice dated 25.7.2005 demanding a sum of Rs.3000/- for the unauthorized use of electrical energy for industrial purpose. The notice served on the opposite parties was accepted and they entered appearance by filing written version denying alleged deficiency in service on their part. They contended that the impugned A4(a) demand notice dated 25.7.05 was issued based on the B2 mahasar prepared by the Assistant Engineer of the concerned electrical section. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below Ext.A1 to A5 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite parties. DW1, the then meter reader and DW2, the then Assistant Engineer, Electrical Punja Section, Kumarakom were also examined. The complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. On the basis of evidence on record, Forum below passed the impugned order cancelling the A4(a) demand notice. The opposite parties were also directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. It is against the said order the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. 3.We heard both sides. 4. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer of electricity with consumer No.7300. The aforesaid electricity supply was given for domestic purpose and that the respondent/complainant being the consumer has been remitting electricity charges under domestic tariff. Admittedly the complainant is running small scale industrial unit for manufacturing aluminium doors, windows and allied fabrication works. It is the case of the opposite parties that the respondent/complainant consumed energy, which was supplied under domestic tariff, for his industrial unit. The aforesaid case of the opposite parties is supported by B1 report submitted by the then meter reader and B2 site mahasar prepared by the then Assistant Engineer, Electrical Punja Section, Kumarakom. The meter reader who submitted B1 report has been examined before the Forum below as DW1 and Asst. Engineer who prepared B2 site mahasar as DW2. A careful evaluation of the oral versions of DWs 1 and 2 with B1 report and B2 site mahasar would make it clear that the complainant consumed electrical energy unauthorisedly for running his small scale industrial unit. Whether the small scale industrial unit is a proprietary concern or a partnership concern is not going to change the situation. One thing is clear that the complainant/consumer under domestic tariff used the said electrical energy for running the fabrication unit (SSI unit) of the complainant. But, the Forum below was not prepared to believe the testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and B1 and B2 documents. The Forum below cannot be justified in not relying on the testimony of DWs 1 and 2 on some flimsy grounds. An over all scrutiny of the entire circumstances of the case would make it clear that there was unauthorized use of electrical energy by the complainant. The appellants/opposite parties are justified in issuing A4 (a) demand notice dated 25.7.05 demanding a sum of Rs.3000/-. Admittedly the opposite parties have only claimed a lesser amount on the basis of the unauthorized use of electrical energy by the complainant. The Forum below cannot be justified in cancelling the aforesaid demand notice dated 25.7.05 for Rs.3000/-. 5. No valid reason or ground has been stated by the Forum below to disbelieve the testimony of DWs 1 and 2. It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant has no case that DWs 1 and 2 were on enemical terms or they were having any ill feelings towards the complainant for prompting them to submit B1 report and B2 site mahasar. We do not find any acceptable reason to doubt the testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and B1 report prepared by the meter reader and B2 site mahasar prepared by the Assistant Engineer. The finding of the Forum below that B1 report is a concocted document based on the corrections in the said report cannot be accept. Had there been any such bad motive for DW1 to concoct a false report, definitely he could have prepared a report without any such corrections. The very nature of B1 report would speak for its genuineness and correctness. The Forum below approached the situation with suspicion. The said suspicion is not supported by any acceptable reason or material. It can be seen that there was unauthorized use of electrical energy at the instance of the complainant and the aforesaid unauthorized action prompted DWs 1 and 2 to prepare B1 and B2 documents. 6. The mere fact that the meter reader at the first instance issued a bill by changing the domestic tariff to commercial tariff cannot be taken as a ground to disbelieve the case of the opposite parties. It is to be noted that the meter reader was not a qualified person and the qualification of the meter reader would reveal from his own B1 report. An illegal demand was made by the meter reader only because of his lack of knowledge and experience. The reason stated by the Forum below to doubt the testimony of DW1 can not be accepted. No valid reason is stated by the Forum below to disbelieve the testimony of DW2, the then Asst. Engineer of the electrical section. The mere fact that the Assistant Engineer demanded only Rs.3000/- for the unauthorized use of electrical energy can not be taken as a valid ground to doubt the case of DW2. At any rate, the available evidence on record would make it clear that there was unauthorized use of energy by the respondent/ complainant. If that be so, the opposite parties are perfectly justified in issuing Ext.A4(a) demand notice dated 25.7.05. The Forum below can not be justified in cancelling the same. We are pleased to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. Hence we do so. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.1.06 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC 176/05 is set aside. The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER ps | 
