IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the   19^th   Day of  July  2021

  Present: -  Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

         Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                                                                     CC.291/2015

N.Viswambharan                               :         Complainant

Viswavihar, U.P.S.Jn.

Edamon P.O,

Punalur-691307

V/s

1. The A.E(Elect.)                        :         Opposite parties

         Electrical Section

        KSEB,

        Thenmala P.O.691308

        [By Adv.K.Shaji]

2. The Secretary

         KSEB H.Q

         Thiruvananthapuram.

       [By Adv.Thattamala.M. Navas]

FINAL  ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M,President

                1. This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

          2.  The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party electricity board.  The complainant and opposite parties are having consumer disputes since 2004  and finally the dispute was compromised on 27.09.2012.   Accordingly CC.273/2009 pending in the file of  CDRF, Kollam was settled by KSEB, Thenmala after the full and through checking of the line and equipments of buildings of  Viswavihar under TP XII/230 and XII/231 by then AXE Punalur and AE, Thenmala and filled the transfer document by them in person and taken signature of the complainant and thereby transfer of ownership was changed in the name of complainant as per ownership No.12-13/60a dated 22.10.2012.  A compromise petition was also filed accordingly.

          3. The present AE, Thenmala was the JE during the year 2009  when CC.273/2009 was compromised.  After his transfer from Thenmala to Kozhikkodu the case was settled and ownership was transferred in the year 2012.  Subsequently he was transferred to Thenmala as AE.  After taking charge as AE he was creating trouble to the complainant due to previous enmity.    Now he had sent a team to the residence of the complainant to check and issue mahasar to give him trouble.  Accordingly the team deputed by the AE came to his residence and checked one part of his residence by name Viswavihar, TP XI/23 and prepared a mahasar dated 20.11.2015 stating that Electric connection was drawn from the main board through wire to the just near building and  its connected load was 720W.  Whereas the correct load as per bill and TF order is 2566.  The employees deputed by the AE has not checked the full connected load but a portion only was checked.  The complainant intimated the KSEB officials that his connection was given to his  premises for the year 1958 and both house were connected together and there is no further extension.  The wiring was changed in 2001 December and January 2002, there after not made any change.  The then AE, Thenmala with his assistants and AXE, Punalur were made a thorough inspection of premises, wiring and equipments throughout the premises and thereafter only connection transfer was made.  The complainant has given a reply to the mahasar  wide registered letter No.ARL 32405211dated 23.11.2015 and the same was received by them  on the next day.  But without considering the fact or even not checking the transfer document to verify the fact  the opposite parties with a view to harass the complainant and caused tension and trouble to the complainant created and issued a notice to the complainant on 24/11 evening by AE in person.  It is also came to the notice of the complainant that penalty bill was prepared and sent to the complainant without checking the fact and verifying documents or without collecting any evidence which would indicate the depth of the enmity of the AE towards the consumer.  There is clear unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and misuse of power.  The complainant has not made any unauthorized alteration in wiring till the date.  There is no dues to KSEB.  The last bill amount of  Rs.2074/- was paid by the complainant during the month of November 2015.  No complaint against the complainant is pending if at all there was any unauthorized connection or wiring it would be in the responsibility of KSEB Engineers while checking the ownership transfer connection by then AXE/AE.  Hence it is to be considered that there was no unauthorized connection or wiring.  The act of the AE created insult and caused mental trouble to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.

          4.The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing  detailed version raising the following contentions.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The bill issued to the complainant is  under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 for unauthorized use of  electricity by him from consumer No.3776 under Thenmala Electrical Section.  On 20.11.2015 the section squad under the 1^st opposite party conducted an inspection in the premises of the complainant in his presence and detected that he extended the electricity connection to another independent building situated outside of the premises to which the electric connection is allowed to be used, by looping wire from the meter board which is unauthorized use of electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003.  The 1^st opposite party prepared a site mahasar then and there, which is acknowledged by the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party issued a bill for Rs.9410/- along with detailed calculations by registered post to the complainant as he refused to accept the same by hand, on provisional assessment against which no objection has been raised by the complainant.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party issued a final bill for the same amount on 01.12.2015 calling upon him to pay the amount within one month as contemplated under the Electricity Act, 2003.  The Electricity Act is a self contained Special Act which provides remedies against the assessment under Section 126 of the Act 2003.  Therefore the complainant had to avail of the remedies contemplated under the Act.  In the circumstance this Forum/Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Originally the electricity connection was given in the name of Mr.Meerasahib, Kallanvilakkedathu Veedu, Edamnon from  whom the complainant purchased the property and the building therein and changed the ownership in the year 2012.  Inorder to effect transfer of ownership the complainant submitted an application accompanied by a sketch of the building to which electric connection is needed and an ownership certificate issued by Thenmala Grama Panchayath as prescribed.  The ownership certificate is issued in respect of the building No.TP XI/230 and sketch contains only one building.  However the unauthorized electric connection is extended from building No.TP XI/231 to a separate independent and pucca building which is in another premises.  The usage of electricity for the premises or areas other than those for  which the supply  of electricity was authorized is unauthorized use of electricity under the Act,2003.  As per Regulation 2(67) of the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code, 2014 ‘premises’ include any land or building or structure which is included in the details and sketches specified in the applications or agreements for grant of electric connection or such other records relating to revision of connected load or contract demand.  Therefore usage of electricity to the building No.TP XI/231 by looping wire from the meter board of Consumer No.3776 is unauthorized use of electricity as the application does not contain the building number and sketch of that building.  There is 5 meter distance between two buildings.  Continuing an illegal act for a quiet long time is not an excuse to take action when it comes to the notice of the authorities.  The unauthorized use of electricity for several years has been admitted by the complainant itself and therefore the assessment ought to have been made for such a long period as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 but that has been considered liberally and thus issued penal bill for 12 months only.  The allegations made against the 1^st opposite party is false and frivolous.  The 1^st opposite party is exercising his duty with bonafide  and due diligence.  He has no enmity whatsoever toward the complainant.  He did not make any trouble to the complainant.  The very same inspection wing inspected the premises of Consumer Nos.4142 and 4223 on the same day and issued penal bills on provisional assessment, which have been paid by the respective consumers.  There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Detection of unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant cannot be considered as deficiency of service but it is the discharge of legal duty assigned to the 1^st opposite party.

          5. At the time of inspection for transferring the ownership, no such looping was there otherwise it would have been dealt with accordingly under the law.  The complainant  used to file case for silly matters and make trouble to the employees and officers of various departments to whom he happened to approach with any matter.  The penalty bill issued to the complainant is neither disputed nor requested to quash the same.  There occurred a mistake in  mentioning the current bill dated 23.11.2015 and 01.12.2015 instead of stating Rs.9169.42 it was recorded as 6169.42.  But the said mistake was correctly mentioned in the calculation sheet served on the complainant along with bills.  The connected load of the consumer is 2566 watts.  The connected load of 720 watts in the site mahasar is the unauthorized connected load of the building No.TP XI/231.  The contention of the complainant contrary to these facts are false and hence denied. None of the prayers  sought by the complainant is allowed.  The opposite parties further pray to dismiss the complaint with their costs.

          6. In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for ?

7. Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 to 4 and Ext.P1 to P14 documents.  Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence , but got marked Ext.D1 to D3 documents.

8. Heard both sides. The learned counsel  appearing for both sides have  filed notes of argument.

Point No.1&2

9.  For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together.  The main relief sought for in the complaint is to issue a mandatory direction to the AE, Thenmala directing to consider the facts and all transfer documents before taking any action.  The complainant has also sought for a prohibitory injunction restraining the  opposite parties for taking any action before finalizing this complaint by this Commission from cutting the electric connection and imposing  penalty.  The further prayer in the complaint is to award compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- due  to the injury caused on account of the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.  The following are the admitted facts in this case.  The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party electricity board.  The buildings by name Viswavihar under TP XI/230 & XI/231 belongs  to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party and AXE, Punalur transferred the ownership of the building in the name of the complainant as ownership No.XII-XII(a).  It is brought out in evidence that the 1^st  opposite party has issued a bill( for Rs.9410/-) u/s 126 of the Electricity Act-2003 for the unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant under Consumer No.3776 of  Thenmala Electrical Section.  It is also brought out the circumstances in which the above bill was generated are also brought out in evidence which would show that on 20.11.2015 the Section Squad under the 1^st opposite party conducted a surprise inspection in the premises of the complainant.  The said inspection was conducted in the presence of the complainant and other witnesses and during inspection it was dictated that the complainant had extended the electric connection to another independent building situated outside the premises to which the electric motor is installed, by looping wire from the mother board which according to the opposite party is unauthorized use of electricity.  It is also brought out in evidence that the officials who detected the unauthorized use  of electricity by the opposite party has prepared a contemporaneous record by name site mahasar then and there which is also acknowledged by the complainant.  However the complainant has refused to accept the above bill.

10. The main contention of the opposite party is that the 1^st opposite party conducted an inspection in the premises of the complainant in his presence and detected that the complainant extended the electric connection to another independent building situated outside the premises of the house building wherein electric connection is allowed to be used, by looping wire from the meter board and there by the complainant has made unauthorized use of the electric connection which is an offence under the Electricity Act and hence the 1^st opposite party issued a bill for Rs.9410/- along with detailed calculation by registered post, but he refused to receive it.  The complainant would allege that the bill issued by the 1^st opposite party is not legal and proper and therefore he is not bound to pay the amount shown in the bill.  Yet another allegation of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party has no authority to conduct a surprise visit and inspection at the premises of the complainant and  therefore Ext/P1 mahasar prepared by the 1^st opposite party is only to be ignored and consequent penal bill is also to be ignored as he is not bound to pay the same.

11. Even according to the complainant the Sub Engineer Nithin Babu has came over at the premises of his residence on 20.11.2015 and prepared Ext.P1 site mahasar. In page No.2 of the proof affidavit the complainant/PW1 would admit that a copy of  P1mahasar has been served on him.  Further down PW1 would admit that wired connection was taken to nearby  building TP XI/23 from the main dummy.  That the meter board is fixed in the outer side of the south wall of the main building facing to south side.

12. Now we shall consider whether there is any merit in the case of the complainant.  The term premises includes any land, building or structure.  The above terms are  used in singular and not in plural.  Ext.P2 document would clearly indicate that Consumer No.3776 was changed into the name of the complainant w.e.f  22.10.2012.  the previous owner of the Consumer number was one Meera Sahib, Kallanvilakkedathveedu, Edamon.  Ext.P12 &Ext.P12(a) documents would further prove that the complainant has filed a written consent deed inorder to change the ownership of the electric connection into his name.  As he was given a consent deed and duly filled application the existing consumer No.3776 was transferred into the name of the complainant N.Viswambharan.  Ext.P12(a) is the copy  of the sketch/plan duly filed by the complainant before the opposite party electricity board for obtaining change of ownership which would indicate that it was a structure of one house building.  Ext.D1 certificate dated 01.03.2016 issued by the secretary of Thenmala Grama Panchayath would clearly indicate that the complainant Viswambharan, Viswavihar, Edamon P.O is having 2 buildings bearing No.TP X1/22 and XI/23 and the information stated in the certificate has been obtained from property tax register kept at the above Grama Panchayath.  Ext.D2 is the original filled up application for obtaining service connection/transfer of service connection.  It is brought out in evidence that the complainant has applied through electrical wireman by name Shaji.V who is having permit No.77060.  On going through Ext.D2 document it is cristal clear that the complainant has obtained transfer of electric connection only for one building.  Ext.D3 is the original site mahasar which would indicate that at about 2 pm on 20.11.2015 Jithin Babu the Sub Engineer, Electrical section Thenmala along with Sadanandan, Oversear of that electrical section  visited the premises of the house building bearing No.TP XI/22werein the complainant and his family have been residing.  On inspection it was found that Cu hoSnsâ sabn³ kzn-¨n \n¶pw hbÀ aptJ\ kss¹ sXm«-Sp-¯pÅ XI/23  F¶ sI«nS¯nte¡v FSp-¯n-«p-Å-Xmbn t_m[-y-s¸-Sp-¶p. The total connected load of the above bearing No.TP XI/23 has been recorded as 720 w.  The connected load of the original building is 2566 w.  Towards the end of Ext.D3 spot mahasar it is stated that the said site mahasar was prepared in the presence of the complainant and the content of the mahasar was read over to the complainant and he was convinced all the facts.  The complainant has also endorsed and signed as witness No.1 in Ext.D3 by stating copy received.  The oversear of the electrical section, Thenmala has also signed in D3 as a witness.  The materials discussed above would clearly  indicate that the complainant is the owner of 2 buildings bearing No.TP XI/22 and XI/23 and the original electric metre has been installed at the front/western wall of the building bearing No.XI/22 and that the complainant has taken connection from that electric metre to another adjacent building bearing No.TP XI/23. 

13. Now we shall examine whether the extension of electric connection of other building amounts to unauthorized connection as stated in explanation(b) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 which defines unauthorized use of electricity.  Accordingly unauthorized use of electricity means the usage of electricity:-

1. By any artificial means
2.  
2. By means not authorized by the concerned person/authority/licence
3.  
3. Through tampered meter
4.  
4. For the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized.

Here  in this case materials available on record would clearly indicate that the opposite party electricity board has authorized the complainant to use electric connection in the premises of the building bearing No.TP XI/22 only.  It is also brought out in evidence that the complainant has been using the electricity for the building bearing No.TP XI/23 by extending connection from the main meter which is undoubtedly an unauthorized usage of electricity as stated under subsection(iv) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003.  In the circumstances the 1^st opposite party is having every right to visit and inspect the meter connection and prepared a site mahasar and the complainant is bound by the site mahasar and consequent bill issued by the opposite parties.  On evaluating the entire materials available on record we find no merit in contenting that the 1^st opposite party is not an authorized person and consequently Ext.D3/P1 mahasar is not vitiated for want of authority as argued by the complainant.  Officials of electricity board doing an act which has been authorized by the statute to make inspection and find out any unauthorised use of electricity.  Hence the same cannot at any structure of imagination would become any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation. 

14. It is further to be pointed out that the complainant has no case that the amount shown in Ext.P7 penal bill issued by the opposite party is excessive or exorbitant or not in proportion to the unauthorized use of the electricity by the complainant.  In the circumstance the complainant is liable to pay the amount shown in P7 bill. However as the matter was under consideration of the electricity board for the last 6 years the complainant is exonerated from paying any further interest or penal interest for the amount shown in Ext.P7 penal bill. 

15. In view of the above findings we are of the view that there is no merit in the case and the same is only to be dismissed. However it is observed that the complainant can obtain independent connection to the building bearing No.TP  XI/23 if he so desires.  In case the complainant makes an application for getting new connection or regularize the unauthorized connection the electricity board shall consider it without any prejudice and allow the same after realizing the prescribed fee.  The points answered accordingly.

Point No.3

In the result the complaint stands dismissed subject to the observations made above.  Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the  19^th   day of  July   2021.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

            Stanly Harold:Sd/-

           Forwarded/by Order

            Senior Superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1    : N.Viswambaran

PW2    : Rajesh.B

PW3    :Eappachan.K.C

PW4    : Jagadeesan

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             :  True Copy of site mahasar

Ext.P2             : True Copy of Change of ownership  in respect of Consumer No.3776-sanction order.

Ext.P3             : Copy of Registered letter dated 23.11.2015.

Ext.P4             : True copy of inspection details dated 20.11.2015.

Ext.P5             :  Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P6             : Copy of compromise filed by the parties.

Ext.P7             : True copy of penalty bill.

Ext.P8             :True copy of consumer personal deposit register.

Ext.P9             :True copy of complaint in CC.273/09.

Ext.P10          :Copy of acknowledgement card and letter of objection.

Ext.P11          :True copy of final bill.

Ext.P12          :True copy of transfer document form of application.

Ext.P13 series: True copy of electricity bills

Ext.P14          : True copy of tax registration  register

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.D1            : Copy of certificate of testimony dated 01.03.2016

Ext.D2            :  Application of  electricity connection

Ext.D3            :   Site mahasar.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

            Stanly Harold:Sd/-

            Forwarded/by Order

           Senior Superintendent