KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 637.2009

JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2011

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                     :  JUDICIAL  MEMBER             

APPELLANTS

1.      The Secretary,KSEB,

         Vydhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,

         Thiruvananthapuram.

2.     The Assistant Engineer,

   Electrical Sectioin, Pallimukku,

   Kollam

                                   ( Rep. by  Adv. Sri.S. Balachandran)

                                       Vs

RESPONDENT

        Sunil Kumar,

         Udayagiri,

         Thattamala P.O., Kollam.

                                (Rep.  by  Adv.  Sri. Sreekumar)

JUDGMENT 

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

This  appeal is preferred against the order dated 30.05.2009  of CDRF, Kollam in   C.C. 316/2005  whereby the Forum below quashed  the bill dated 17.8.2005  for  Rs. 1,07,626/- and the opposite parties are directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant.

The case of the complainant is that he was conducting an oil mill and had been remitting the electricity charges without fail.  The opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 1, 07,626/- alleging  that some portions of wire lost insulation and there was leakage of energy and meter shows only some portions of energy.  The bill was issued  after  the visit of the opposite parties in the firm of the complainant and a  Mahazar was prepared by the opposite parties.   According to the complainant the damage in the insulation was caused at the time of inspection and it was not done by him.  The opposite party is not having any case of unauthorized consumption of energy by the complainant.  Though the complainant preferred a complaint before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kollam, it was refused and he was directed to pay the bill amounts in installments.  Alleging deficiency in service in issuing the disputed bill, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to cancel the bill and to pay compensation and costs.

The opposite parties in their version contented that the electricity connection of the complainant is purely for industrial purpose and when the A.P.T.S. inspected the premises of the complainant it  was detected that  the seals of the box were  found in a loose condition, which indicates that the seals were tampered and box opened several times and also found that the seal did not have any marking of KSEB which clearly shows that  the re-sealing  was not done by the KSEB.  They further contented that the insulation of the CT leads were cut and removed and the naked leads were made to touch the body of the metal box  and due to this the meter could not record actual consumption and this amounts to theft of energy.  They further submitted that the above facts were recorded in the mahazar  and photographs were taken by the squad.  Thus they reassessed the meter charges of the complainant  for a period of last 6 months based on the connected load  and short assessment bill  was issued to the complainant on the same  day itself.  Contenting that the complainant was liable to pay the amount and that there was no deficiency of service on their part, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

We heard the learned counsel for both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties argued for the position that the Forum below has no jurisdiction in view of Section. 145 of the Electricity Act and submitted before us that the order of the Forum below in canceling the impugned bill is not sustainable either in law or in facts.  It is submitted before us that the impugned bill was issued consequent to the detention of theft of energy by the APTS of the opposite parties.  Thus the complainant is liable to pay the impugned bill, as the short assessment was for a period  of 6 months.  Pleading that there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part, the counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/complaint supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  He submitted before us that the Forum has appreciated the pleadings and evidence in its correct perspective and has passed the impugned order.  It is also his case that the complainant has not done anything to arrest the working of the meter thereby the actual consumption could not be recorded.  It is also argued by him that the consumption after the rectifications done by the opposite parties was less than the previous consumption.  Thus he argued that the bill issued by the appellants/opposite parties is illegal and   prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

On hearing both sides and on perusing the records we find that the appellants/ opposite parties have issued the bill on the basis of a site mahazar prepared by them which is marked as Ext. D1.  The opposite parties would   argue that the current lost by the means of earth leakage due to the touching of wires in the metal box which have been done by the complainant can be considered as theft of energy and the penal bill issued  for the period of 6 months is legal

and the forum below  ought to have dismissed the complaint.   But on a careful reading of Ext. D1, we find that  the metal box was sealed at the time of inspection and it was only on opening the meter  box , that  it was found that the wires had no insulation and those wires were touching  the metal box.  However it is to be found that the appellants have not proved that the complainant had opened the box and committed theft of energy.  Their only presumption is that as the wires which had no insulation touched the metal box and as the current transformer leads were cut and removed, the complainant had committed theft of energy.  We are not inclined to accept the assertion of the appellants/opposite parties without supporting evidence.   It is also found that Dw1 has deposed that at   times when the reading is not clear the meter readers take the reading after opening the box by breaking the seal.  So naturally the meter box ought to have been opened several times.  In the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the complainant had committed theft of energy, the bill issued on that score cannot be upheld.  Moreover we find that the bill was issued for a period of 6 months based on the connected load of the complainant.    It is also found that consumption after the rectifications of the wiring was on the lower  side.  At any rate the issuance of impugned bill amounts to deficiency in service.    From the above facts and circumstances, we find that the order of the Forum is to be upheld.  Hence we do so. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and thereby the impugned order dated. 30.5.2009 of CDRF, Kollam  in C.C. 316/05  is confirmed.  As far as  the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs

                  VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

                   M.V. VISWANATHAN              :     JUDICIAL MEMBER

 st