By. Smt. Saji Mathew, Member :

The gist of the Complaint is follows.
 

The complainant is the consumer of Consumer No. 622 which is in the name of complainant father P.G Padmanabhan. The above said connection situates on the premises which was owned by complainant's father Late Mr. P.G Padmanabhan which was inherited by complainant, his mother and his brother and his sister. On 9.10.07, the opposite parties made an inspection on the premises and send a notice in the name of complainant's father stating that some illegalities were found on the inspection. Complainant's mother sent an explanation for the said notice. The contention that the domestic connection is used otherwise for a building used for drying agricultural goods and also functioning as the estate office is not correct. It is shown in the notice that the building has two building number. When old building was damaged, the Punchayath has added that building number to the existing building and that is not within the control of the complainant. The allegation that the connection which was formerly only 25 meters away from the electric post now situated in the pump house is not correct. It is not correct to say that the service wire is taken to the main switch of the building 45 meter away are not correct. The allegation that the connection was shifted to another building without knowledge and information of opposite party is not correct. The complainant has used the connection in the same condition on which the opposite party has connected it. It can be asserted by examining the wire and other equipment used in the connection. It is not correct to state that electricity was looped to the electric motor 100 meter far. The complainant has not made any unauthorised extension as such. Since the building bears the building number of the former damaged building also it is not necessary for the complainant to take another electricity connection. So the Opposite party have no right to remove the connection without informing the complainant. The Opposite parties have asked the complainant to legalize the the unauthoirised extension to the electric motor submitting necessary documents. But there is no such unauthorized connection as alleged. The complainant pumps water from a pond using diesel motor. The well mentioned in the notice is remaining abandoned and the complainant is not taking water from that well. It is not correct to say that electricity is used for drying cardamom and other agricultural products. Complainant is using firewood and gas for such purposes. The inspection conducted by the opposite parties and the bill issued on the basis of such inspection are illegaland is to be quashed. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. So the complainant prays for an order quashing the bill issued by the Opposite party and allowing compensation and other cost to the complainant.

2. The Opposite party appeared and filed version. The Opposite parties state that they do not know whether the complainant are legal hairs of Mr. P. C. Padmanabhan, who was provided with the connection in domestic tariff vide Consumer No. 622. The Opposite party are not aware of the demise of P.C. Padmanabhan. If a registered consumer of an electricity connection expires the successor is legally bound to take action to transfer the ownership of the electricity connection to his name. In this case no such action is taken by anybody. Therefore the complainant is not a consumer of these opposite parties.

3. An Inspection made by the Asst. Executive Engineer of K.S.E.B in the premises of the Consumer No. 622 and 883 on 9.10.07 has recorded some irregularities. Consumer No. 622 was given by drawing weather proof line for 25 meters from the nearly post. But on inspection it was found that the energy meter of Consumer No. 622 is connected to the panel board of Consumer No. 883 and energy in looped through the terminal cover of the energy meter of Consumer No.883 for which a reduced tariff is applicable. Energy was found taken to the building by drawing underground wire of about 46 meters, wherein Consumer No.622 was given. There are two building numbers, PP XVII 538 and PP XVII 537 for the above said one building. A temporary extension of 100 meters length was taken from building No. PP XVII 537 to a 1 HP electric motor installed near a well situated adjacently. There was a total connected load of 1306 watt in the premises at the time of inspection. The domestic connection 622 was found not used for domestic purpose. It was found utilized for drying cardamom and for the office of the estate. The other premises was found used for storing manures coconuts and agricultural tools. The above facts are recorded in the mahazer prepared then and there. And due to the act of the consumers the opposite parties has suffered loss and the consumer is liable to compensate the opposite parties. Since the Act of the consumer was punishable under the provisions of the Electricity Act, a penal bill for Rs.12,149 were issued to Consumer No.622. There is no deficiency in service on the part of K.S.E.B and they have done only their duty. So the Opposite party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. The Opposite party was examined as OPW1 and another witnesses on the side of Opposite Party was examined as OPW2 . Documents were marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B2 on the side of the Opposite Party. Here the matters to be considered are as follows.

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the complainant?

2.Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief ?

5. Point. No.1 The disputed bill Ext.3 is regarding the Consumer No. 622. Complainant's allegation is that the meter of Consumer No.622 is connected to the panel board of Consumer No. 883 and energy is looped from Consumer No.883 for which a reduced tariff is applicable. The Opposite parties allege that the complainant has misused energy and thereby caused loss to the K.S.E.B. Ext.C1 shows that the meter of Consumer No.622 is located in the same pump house where the connection for agricultural purpose is connected. Ext.C1 shows that connection is taken from Consumer No. 622 to the residential building which is 46 meters far from the pump house. And this building has two building numbers. Building No. XVII 537 is a house and XVII 538 is an extension for agricultural purpose.

6. In this case, Ext.B2 shows that Consumer No.622 is issued for commercial purpose. But Ext.A2 bill reveals that Consumer No.622 is charged under domestic tariff. The Opposite parties give no explanation about the loss that would have been sustained in this case. And it is strange how the meter of Consumer No.622 can be connected and shifted to another premise without the knowledge of K.S.E.B or their employees. It is noted that no legal action is taken against the complainants when there is allegation that the meter is shifted and energy is misused. The witnesses on opposite parties side could not explain the basis on which the disputed bill is issued. Under the above said circumstances, the point No.1 is found against the Opposite parties.

7. Point No.2 The Opposite parties could not prove their case. In the version they stated that the Consumer No. 622 is domestic. They have produced documents Ext.B2 to show that the same connection is commercial. Ext.C1 clearly shows that Consumer No.622 is used for domestic purpose. The Opposite parties have not produced any documents to show that Consumer No.883 is for agricultural purpose. So, the complainant is entitled to get the disputed Ext.A3 bill quashed . So the complainant is allowed and the Ext.A3 bill is quashed. The Opposite parties are also directed to issue bill in respect of Consumer No.622 for the actual consumption of energy under domestic tariff. No order regarding cost or compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th day of February 2009.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER I : Sd/-

MEMBER II : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

PW1. Anoop. P.P Complainant

Witnesses for the Opposite Party :

OPW1. Saji. J Sub.Engineer, K.S.E.B

OPW2 Sreedharan Sub. Engineer, K.S.E.B. Panamaram.

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Certificate dt. 05.11.2007

A2(6 Numbers) Bill

A3 Bill

A4. Notice

A5. Authorization letter

A6. Explanation submitted by mother

of complainant. dt. 18.10.2007

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :

B1. True copy of site mahazar dt.09.10.2007

B2. True copy of relevant pages of

Service connection register.