KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.337/07

JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2010

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN               --  MEMBER

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

1.      KSEB. Reptd. by its Secretary,

Vydhuthi Bhavan,

Pattom, Trivandrum.

2.      Deputy Chief Engineer,                                                                                      Electrical Circle Office,

          Pattom.                                                      --  APPELLANTS

3.      Asst.Engineer,

          Electrical Section Office,

          Pinnakkanad, Kanjirappally,

Kottayam.

   (By Adv. S. Balachandran)

                   Vs.

Shaji George,

Kozhimala, Kappad,                                           --  RESPONDENT

Kalaketty, Kanjirappally, Kottayam.

                                    JUDGMENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, MEMBER

          The order dated 30.11.06 of CDRF, Kollam in CC.229/05 is being assailed in this appeal  by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel Ext.A2 and A3 bills for Rs.9643/- and Rs.3445/- respectively along with demand notice of the Asst. Engineer marked as Ext.A7.  By the impugned order, the opposite parties are also under directions to refund the appeal application fee of Rs.500/-, and pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and costs of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.

                 2. The complainant’s case in brief is that he is a consumer of the opposite parties having 2 connections; one to his residence and  other to his Chicks breading farm and that on 29.7.05 he had purchased 7000 chicks and there was no supply in the premises and on contacting the third opposite party the complainant was permitted to take connection from the domestic supply to the farm, till  re-instating the supply to the farm.  The   complainant has also submitted that at about 9 PM on the same day, the third opposite party along with some other persons came to his premises and threatened to disconnect the supply to the house and asked for bribe if  supply was necessary.  Under threat he was   forced to sign the site mahazer prepared by the third opposite party and   no action was taken till 11.8.05 and subsequently a bill for Rs.9643/-  and another bill for Rs.3445/- were issued under directions to pay the same or on before 16.8.05 and 19.8.05 respectively.  As the complainant was in need of electric supply and as there was a threat of disconnection, he had remitted the bill amounts with protest on 11.8.05 itself.

                 3. The complainant further submitted that an appeal was filed by him by paying an amount of Rs.500/- and in the appeal, the bill for Rs.9643/- was cancelled.   However, the Deputy Chief Engineer has ordered for payment of OYEC charges for the agricultural connection and it was stated that the complainant had misused the energy.  The complainant’s further  case is that he had not committed any misuse of energy or there was unauthorized extension and that he was not liable to pay any amounts  to the opposite parties towards misuse of energy or unauthorized extension.   He had also submitted that he had suffered great loss consequent to the actions  of the opposite parties and the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties  to cancel the 2 bills issued to him and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and costs.

                4. The opposite parties in their version contended that the complainant had committed misuse of energy by drawing the line un-authorizedly from his residence to the Chick breading farm having Consumer No.5433.  It was also submitted that they were informed of the misuse of energy by some person over phone on 29.7.05 and on inspection misuse was found out and accordingly a bill for Rs.9643 /-was issued.  The bill for Rs.3445/- was also issued for the misuse of energy.  The further case of the opposite parties was that the appellate authority,   Deputy Chief Engineer had directed them to collect OYEC charges from the complainant for the connection towards   Chick breading farm as there was misuse of energy which amounted to violation of the conditions of supply.  It was their case that they had demanded the charges for OYEC as per the directions of the higher authorities.

                5. On the side of the complainant, the complainant and a witness filed proof affidavits and marked Exts.A1 to A7.  On the side of the opposite parties apart from Exts.B1 to B3 and the affidavits of an official of the KSEB and two other witnesses were filed.  It is based on the said evidence that the forum below  passed the impugned order.

                6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants,  respondent  and also on perusing the records, we find that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and that he had availed 2 connections from the opposite parties.  The complainant would say that he had actually taken electricity from the domestic purpose to his Chick farm  as there was no supply to the Chick farm on the particular date of 29.7.05.  The reason stated by the complainant is that on that day he had purchased 7,000 chicks and that  the third opposite party had orally permitted him to take connection from the domestic supply to his farm.  However, it is found that the appellate authority, the Deputy Chief Engineer had cancelled the bill of Rs.9643/- and directed the concerned official to issue a bill for Rs.942/- in its place.  So, we are not going in details to the aspects leading to the issuance of the bill for Rs.9643/-.   The opposite parties/appellants had submitted that there was an inspection on 29.7.05 and had prepared a mahazer which is produced and marked as Ext.B1.  The appellants would also argue that they had filed affidavits of parties to substantiate their case that the bills were issued consequent to the detection of misuse of energy.  The  learned counsel for the appellants had further argued   that the affidavits of the parties are sufficient proof to show that there was illegal abstraction of energy which amounts to misuse of energy.  But, we find that the complainant has also filed affidavits to prove his   case.  Thus, we find that there is only oath against oath.  

       7.  It is the case of the complainant that he had not committed any misuse of energy in the connection that was given to the Chick breading farm.  The connection was obtained under agriculture purpose and the stand of the opposite parties that as misuse was detected, the complainant is liable to pay OYEC charges for the agriculture connection.  We do not find any logic in the said direction of the opposite parties.  Since, there is no   conclusive proof to show that the complainant had committed any misuse of energy in Consumer No. 5433 the direction to pay OYEC charges cannot be sustained.

                 8. More over, the Deputy Chief Engineer has directed to cancel Ext.A2 bill on the appeal filed by the complainant. The Forum below had directed to refund the appeal fee of Rs.500/- along with compensation of Rs.5000/- and  costs of Rs.1000/-.  We are not in a position to agree  with the said conclusion of the Forum below.  It was the statutory fee that was paid by the complainant and it is seen that Deputy Chief Engineer had taken action on the application filed by the complainant.  It is also to be found that apart from the bare statement of loss the complainant has not adduced any evidence that he had suffered any loss.  In such a circumstance, the direction to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-    cannot be supported.  However, the cost of Rs.1000/- ordered is sustained.

      9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications mentioned above.     Thereby, that part of the order directing the opposite parties to cancel Ext.A2 to A7 bills and also Ext.A7 demand notice stand confirmed.  The direction to refund the appeal application fee of Rs.500/- and compensation of Rs.5000/- are set aside.  However, the direction to pay cost of Rs.1000/- is sustained.

In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  --  MEMBER

VALSALA SARANGADHARAN --  MEMBER