CC Filed on 06.04.2009<br /> Disposed on 23.07.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 23rd day of July 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 25/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> P.V. Shakunthala,<br /> W/o. Venkateshappa,<br /> Aged about 28 years,<br /> R/o Pakarahalli Village,<br /> Hudukala Post,<br /> Bangarpet Taluk,<br /> Kolar District.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. P.N. Krishna Reddy and Others ) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The Asst. Executive Engineer,<br /> BESCOM, Bangarapet Sub-Division,<br /> Bangarapet.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Smt. Kusuma Krishnamurthy <br /> and Others)<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Assistant Engineer,<br /> BESCOM, Vigilance, <br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,500/- towards damages for delay in supply of electric connection and to cancel back billing notice dated 18.02.2009 and to give power connection immediately with costs, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The case of complainant may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant with intent to install a Band Saw for cutting the firewood for her Brick Industry at Pakarahalli Village Kasaba Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk applied for conversion of single phase power supply to three phase power supply and filed application for it and took necessary steps by depositing the required amount and purchasing a new Meter, etc. She purchased vertical Band Saw Machine on 19.01.2009 at Hyderabad and made arrangements for its transportation and after a week received delivery of that machine. The complainant purchased a new Meter and handed over that meter to OP.1 on 16.02.2009 and a meter number was given as B.P. 1274 and the power connection was also given to the complainant’s factory. <br /> <br /> It is alleged that the allegation of OPs that the complainant was found extracting electrical energy illegally as per the report dated 18.02.2009 of Assistant Executive Engineer, Ele., BESCOM Vigilance, Kolar is not true and the draft back billing proposed by the said Vigilance Officer for Rs.56,412/- is illegal. Therefore she filed the present complaint praying for reconnection of the electricity and quashing of the draft bill for back billing charge.<br /> <br /> The OPs appeared through Counsel and OP.1 filed version on behalf of them. It is contended that the complainant has concealed the real facts and that the meter was not installed and power was not supplied as alleged. Further it is contended that OP.2 with its staff visited the premises of complainant on 18.02.2009 and found that the complainant was running the Saw Mill Machine taking direct connection from the electric poles and was using power for 5 HP motor and ½ HP motor thereby committed theft of electricity and that a mahazar and other proceedings were drawn by OP.2 in that connection and the said OP.2 sent a draft back billing for Rs.56,412/- and proposed compounding fee of Rs.24,000/-.<br /> <br /> 3. The parties filed affidavits and documents. We heard the arguments of parties.<br /> <br /> 4. In Para.7 of the complaint it is specifically alleged that the meter was handed over to OP.1 on 16.02.2009 and it was installed and a meter number was given and the power connection was also given. These allegations are denied by OP.1. <br /> <br /> The complainant has produced a report dated 24.02.2009 submitted by Assistant Engineer (Ele.) to OP.1 stating that on 16.02.2009 the complainant purchased meter and a R.R. number (B.P. 1274) was also obtained for the purpose of giving electricity connection, but by that time there was no electricity thereby there was delay in fixing the meter. He observed in his report that there appeared to be no theft of electricity prior to his date of report. <br /> <br /> 5. The Learned Counsel for complainant mainly relied upon this report to contend that there was supply of electricity after giving meter number. The complainant has not specifically stated on which day the power supply was made. <br /> <br /> OP.1 was present at the time of arguments. He admitted that the power supply is to be supervised by him personally, but in the present case he was not present on the spot on 16.02.2009 when the Lineman had gone to give power supply. Further he submitted that he has not verified whether any required document was prepared for having given the power supply. From these facts it is not clear whether power supply was given on 16.02.2009 or not. The OP.1 who was present before the Forum, does not specifically deny that no document was prepared for having given the power supply on that day. <br /> <br /> Therefore it appears to us that proper verification was not made by prescribed Authority to ascertain whether the power supply was given or not. <br /> <br /> 6. At the time of inspection of Vigilance Officer (OP.2), the meter might not have been found fixed for one or the other reason. It is quite possible in the present circumstances to infer that some lower cadre officers working under OP.1 might have permitted the complainant to use electricity though the supply of power was not made in accordance with the prescribed manner. Therefore these facts are to be verified by OP.1 before taking any action against complainant for the alleged theft of electricity. <br /> <br /> It appears the alleged illegal connection stated by Vigilance Officer must have been disconnected at the time of his inspection. He prepared draft back billing charge and proposed the quantum of compounding fee. It can be seen that section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 provides procedure for back billing. The Assessing Officer has to find out whether there was theft of electricity or not in the peculiar circumstances of this case. It appears subsequent to the inspection dated 18.02.2009 by the Vigilance Officer, no further step is taken by OP.1 and the installation still remains disconnected. <br /> <br /> 7. In the above facts and circumstances we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> OP.1 shall take immediate steps to ascertain the alleged theft of electricity and in case theft is found to be true to him he shall assess the back billing charge as provided in section 126 of Electricity Act 2003.<br /> <br /> If the alleged theft of electricity is based on misconception, he shall immediately make arrangement for giving power supply to the premises in question.<br /> <br /> Parties shall bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 23rd day of July 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />