BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE

     Dated this the 19^th August 2010

COMPLAINT NO.36/2010

(Admitted on 23.01.2010)

PRESENT:                1. Smt. Asha Shetty, President                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

2. Smt.Lavanya M. Rai, Member

BETWEEN:

Sri.S.Abbas,

So. Ibrahim,

Aged about 45 years,

RA. Aranthodu House,

Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.       …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Sanjay D).

          VERSUS

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

MESCOM, Sullia Sub Division,

Sullia, Dakshina Kannada.      

2. Junior Engineer (Ele.)

MESCOM L.T. Rating,

Sub-Division,

Puttur, Dakshina Kannada.       ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. S.M. Bhat).

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The Complainant is the consumer of the electricity power of the Opposite Parties as per meter No.SL 9553 for residential purposes.  It is stated that, the above house has two rooms.  The average bill of the electricity consumption is between Rs.100/- to Rs.120/-.  There is no due whatsoever. 

When the matter stood thus, the 2^nd Opposite Party has conducted the inspection of the Complainant’s meter No.SL 9553 on 09.01.2009 and prepared a letter on the same day stating that, the Complainant has committed theft of electricity and disconnected the power supply on the same day without any notice or without calling for objections from the Complainant.  Thereafter, 1^st Opposite Party issued a bill dated 21.10.2009 for Rs.55,343/- to be payable within 30 days.  It is stated that, once again the Opposite Party issued another bill dated 27.10.2009 for Rs.64,642/- to be payable within 30 days.  It is stated that, the Opposite Party has given only 7 days to file objection to the bills, since the electricity is necessary the Complainant has paid the bill amount of Rs.64,542/- on 06.11.2009.  It is stated that, the Complainant did not commit theft of electricity at any point of time and issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party dated 16.12.2009 and further contended that the 2^nd Opposite Party did not followed the procedure annunciated under the Distribution Code and Electricity Act 2003.  Before disconnecting the power supply, the Opposite Parties are duty bound to issue disconnection notice, without issuing disconnection notice the power was disconnected.  And further contended that, the Opposite Party did not explain as to how the supplemental bill was raised.  The procedure not followed by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency and the bill issued by them is not correct and sought for cancellation of the bill dated 27.10.2009 and filed this complaint before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to declare the bill dated 27.10.2009 for Rs.64,542/- issued by the 1^st Opposite Party is null and void and to refund Rs.64,542/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 6.11.2009 till payment and also claimed Rs.75,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation expenses.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version contended that, on 09.10.2009 the Opposite Party after receiving definite information raided the Complainant’s premises and found that the Complainant committed theft of the electricity power and thereby the case was registered under crime No.144/2009 under Section 135, 138 of the Electricity Act.  As per the rules, the mahazar was prepared and the materials were seized and the power was disconnected and contended that as per the rules regulated under the Electricity Distribution Code the bill was issued on 27.10.2009 for Rs.64,642/- and there is no lapse/deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Sri.S.Abbas (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Ex C1 to C7 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.   One Sri.Yasavanth (RW1), Assistant Executive Engineer - Opposite Party No.2 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Ex R1 to R3 were marked for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure.   Both parties produced notes of arguments along with citations.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:                         

                       Point No.(i): Negative.

                       Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.   

Reasons

5.  Point No. (i) to (iii):

In the given case, the facts which are not in dispute is that, the Complainant is the consumer of electricity power supplied by the Opposite Parties as per meter No.SL 9553 for residential purpose.  The average bill of the electricity power is between Rs.100/- to Rs.120/- and the Complainant paying the electricity bill regularly as and when issued by the Opposite Parties.

Now the point in dispute between the parties before this Forum is that, according to the Complainant, the 2^nd Opposite Party has conducted the inspection of the meter No.SL 9553 on 09.10.2009 and prepared a letter dated 09.10.2009 alleging that the Complainant has committed theft of electricity and issued a bill dated 21.10.2009 for Rs.55,343/- to be payable within 30 days.  The Opposite Party again issued another bill dated 27.10.2009 for Rs.64,642/- to the Complainant to be payable within 30 days.  In the above two bills the 1^st Opposite Party has given only 7 days to file objection.  Since the electricity is necessary the Complainant has paid the bill amount of Rs.64,542/- on 06.11.2009.  It is stated that, the Complainant did not commit theft of electricity at any point of time and issued a lawyer’s notice dated 16.12.2009 to the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties issued a reply and contended that the Opposite Party has no authority to disconnect the power supply to the Complainant’s house.  And further it is contended that, the Opposite Party issued two bills it shows the different amounts for the same offence, the back billing done by the Opposite Parties has no basis and they have not followed the Distribution Code 29.04, the Opposite Parties should have served a provisional bill of 15 days notice to the Complainant and the Opposite Party did not consider the objections and hence it is contended that the Opposite Parties not followed the principles laid under the Distribution Code, hence disputed the amount and came up with this Complaint.

The Opposite Party on the contrary denied the deficiency of service and contended that the Complainant has given direct power connection but he has bypassed the meter and committed theft under Section 151 of the Electricity Act and Code 42.06 and thereafter crime No.144/2009 under Section 135, 138 of the Electricity Act filed and mahazar was drawn in the presence of the Complainant’s representative and the power connection was disconnected and there is no lapse. 

The Complainant filed affidavit and also produced Ex C1 to C7.  Opposite Parties also filed evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex R1 to R3. 

On careful scrutiny of the evidence and materials on record, we find that, the Complainant is the consumer of electricity power supplied by the Opposite Party as per meter No.SL 9553 for his residence.  The Ex C1 is the letter issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the 2^nd Opposite Party, wherein, it has shown the quantum of energy unauthorizedly used by the Complainant (theft) and also shows that the Complainant has used the power for his shop for commercial purpose. That means, the subject in dispute involved in this case is stealing electricity/ unauthorized use of electricity.   It is not possible to agree with the Complainant for more reasons than one.  The Complainant is seriously denying the allegation of theft and it is not possible to assume the accusation as correct without a full pledged trial on this issue.  The allegations of theft are true or not have to be examined and decided in an appropriate proceedings and not by filing a complaint under deficiency of service before this Forum.  Hence in our view, the complaint filed by the Complainant cannot be entertained for the reasons stated above.

In view of the above reasons, the complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                                  

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 19^th day of August 2010.)

          PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri.S.Abbas – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 09.10.2009: Original letter issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the 1^st Opposite Party.

Ex C2 –  21.10.2009: Original bill issued by the 1^st Opposite Party.

Ex C3 – 27.10.2009: Original bill issued by the 1^st Opposite Party.

Ex C4 – 06.11.2009: Original receipt for payment of Rs.64,542/-.

Ex C5 – 16.12.2009: Lawyer’s notice sent to the Opposite Parties on behalf of the Complainant.

Ex C6 – 17.12.2009: Postal acknowledgement (2 in numbers).

Ex C7 – 22.12.2009: Reply by the 2^nd Opposite Party.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1 – Sri.Yasavanth, Assistant Executive Engineer -  Opposite Party No.2.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex R1 – 09.10.2009 : Complaint regarding theft of electricity.

Ex R2 – 09.10.2009: Mahazar.

Ex R3 – 09.10.2009: Letter of the Opposite Party No.2 to the Opposite Party No.1.

Dated:19.08.2010                            PRESIDENT