DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALAPPURAM

(Present: Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

Smt. E. Ayishakutty, Member,

Sri. Mohammed Musthafa Koothradan, Member)

Date of filing: 27-3-2008

Date of Order: 03-4-2009

C.C.No.70/08

Abdul Kabeer, 39 years, S/o Moosa Haji, ) Poovil veedu, Pooncholamad, )

Vengara, Malappuram Dist. ) Complainant

)

(By Adv. Abdu Rahim, Manjeri) )

Vs

Sub Engineer, )

Kerala State Electricity Board, ) Vengara. ) Opposite party )

(By Adv. K.P. Sumathi, Malappuram) )

ORDER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant is a consumer under opposite party for electricity supply to his house. On 29-02-2008 opposite party conducted an inspection of the premises and thereafter asked the complainant to come to the office of first opposite party. When complainant approached the office, first opposite party gave him a site mahazar and stated that the bill will be issued later. On 03-3-2008 a bill for Rs.12,000/- was served upon the complainant. Though complainant enquired about the details of the bill nothing was explained and he was simply asked to remit the amount as per the bill. The averments stated in the site mahazar are wrong. That complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per the bill. Hence this complaint.

2. Opposite party filed version admitting that complainant is a consumer. It is also admitted that on 29-02-2008 opposite party conducted an inspection of the premises. That at that time complainant was not present. At the time of inspection marble laying work was being done. The complainant was unauthorisedly using electricity for operating marble cutters. On 01-03-2008 complainant approached the office of opposite party and obtained copy of site mahazar, and at that time the details of the bill was explained to him. On 03-3-2008 complainant was served with a bill for Rs.12,000/- for misuse of energy. Complainant is liable to pay the same for the unauthorised additional load used by him. That there is no deficiency in service.

3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1 and A2 marked for complainant. Opposite party filed counter affidavit. No documents for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

4. Complainant challenges Ext.A2 bill dated, 03-3-2008 for Rs.12,000/-. According to opposite party the bill was issued for the misuse of energy detected at the time of inspection conducted on 29-02-2008. Opposite party relied upon the site mahazar Ext.A1 and submitted that complainant was using the energy supplied for domestic purpose unauthorisedly for operating marble cutters and doing the marble laying work on the floor. It is also submitted by opposite party that 4KW of unauthorised load was connected by operating the marble cutting machines and thus penal bill was issued assessing for a period of 30 days.

5. Apparently the bill is issued under Sec.126 of the Indian Electricity Act. Opposite party does not have a case that a provisional assessment order was issued prior to the issuance of Ext.A2 penal bill. As per sub clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Sec. 126 opposite party is bound to issue a provisional order. Only after considering the objections filed by complainant upon this provisional order and after giving the complainant a reasonable opportunity of hearing can the final order be passed. These provisions are intended to safeguard the consumers against unilateral and arbitrary actions of officers. In Ext.A2 bill the details regarding the assessment are not stated. It is candid that opposite party has flagrantly violated the mandatory provisions contemplated in Sec.126 of Indian Electricity Act. Such violation is denial of natural justice to the complainant.

6. It is held by Hon'ble National Commission in Hariyana Bijili Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Megh Raj and other cases, -- that it is necessary to follow the entire procedure contemplated in Sec.126 before passing final assessment order. Non compliance of mandatory provisions is nothing but arbitrariness and against law. Applying the ratio of the above decisions we hold that the bill issued vitiating the mandatory provisions of law is illegal and has to be set aside. Issuing bills violating provisions of law amounts to deficiency in service. We find opposite parties deficient in service.

7. In the result, we allow this complaint and order that Ext.A2 bill dated, 03-3-2008 for Rs.12,000/-(Rupees Twelve thousand only) is cancelled. Any amount paid by complainant towards this bill shall be refunded to the complainant by first opposite party. Complainant is at liberty to file application before first opposite party and get the amount so refundable adjusted to his future electricity bills. The time for compliance of the above order is fixed as two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 3^rd day of April, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2

Ext.A1 : Carbon copy of the Site mahazar dated, 29-02-2008 prepared by

Sri. A.P. Alavikutty, Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Vengara.

Ext.A2 : Demand and Disconnection notice dated, 03-3-2008 for Rs.12,000/-

issued by opposite party to consumer No.20293-5

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER