By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainants are husband and wife who are consumers for electricity supply under opposite party. The electricity connection provided to their house stands in the name of the wife who is the second complainant. Complainants challenge the penal bill issued by opposite party for Rs.1,02,732.71 dated, 20-01-2007. It is their say that on 18-01-2007 two persons from the electricity office came to their house and intimated them that the meter was not working properly and it has to be tested. These persons went near the meter board and repaired the board. The installations were taken out and they temporarily fixed a meter. They informed the complainants that a temporary meter was installed for checking. The wires were hanging out and they told the complainants that it was only a temporary arrangement and will be fixed later. Thereafter there was voltage fluctuation. Some bulbs and telephone adaptor was burnt and the stabilizer was making unusual humming sounds. The first complainant immediately switched off the main switch. Even then there was electric supply. First complainant intimated the matter to first opposite party. The very same persons came again and did some repairs in the meter board. They stated that the defect was such that the neutral wire was not fixed properly. Complainants believed them. Thereafter on 19-01-2007 three persons came to the house of the complainant and checked the installations and asked first complainant to come to the office of first opposite party. Complainant did not have any knowledge as to who these persons were. No notice was given. There was no electricity after the arrival of these persons. Complainants were informed that their electricity supply was disconnected and directed them to contact the Engineer-in-charge. When first complainant approached the Engineer-in-charge complainant was asked to sign in a mahazar and a bill for Rs.1,02,732.71 was also issued. When complainant enquired about the details he was informed that the meter was not working properly and that tampering was detected. That connection would be restored only on payment of the penal bill. It is averred that complainants have not tampered the meter and do not have any technical know-how of such things. The meter reader used to take meter readings regularly. Consumption was very low and charges were reasonable. The defect of the meter, if any, was caused by the staff of the department of opposite party who fixed the parallel meter and made subsequent repairs. Complainants are innocent and the bill is liable to be cancelled. The amount raised in the bill was paid fully under protest and supply was restored. Complainants preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer. No order has been so far passed and complainant is aggrieved by the delay. The assessment in the bill is entirely wrong. The final assessment was made without complying the provisions of law and rules and against natural justice. The bill issued is having no nexus with the consumption and complainants are not liable to pay the same. Hence this complaint to set aside the penal bill for Rs.1,02,732.71 dated, 20-01-2007, to direct opposite party to refund the amount with 12% interest which has been already paid towards the bill and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- together with costs.<br /> <br /> 2. A joint version was filed by all opposite parties. It is admitted that a three phase connection is provided to the premises of the second complainant, with consumer No.8141 under Manjeri Electrical Section. A surprise inspection was conducted on 19-01-2007 jointly by Anti Power Theft Squad, Regional Unit, Kozhikkode and Sub Engineer of the respective Electrical Section (Manjeri) in the presence of the complainants. A detailed site mahazar was prepared based on the observations and findings at the premises. First complainant admitted the mahazar and put his dated, signature in the mahazar on the same day at the premises itself. A penal bill was issued for Rs.1,02,732.71 dated, 20-01-2007. Complainant paid the full amount on the same day without any protest. The amount raised in the bill is actually due to the Board. As per office records the sanctioned load is 5.705 KW only. But the present connected load is 10.348 KW. Complainant has thus connected more than 5KW unauthorisedly. Opposite party has tabulated in the version the meter readings prior to inspection and the reading after inspection and change of meter. It is stated that a sudden fall was noted in the consumption after 17-7-2006. This was the reason for affixing parallel meter and conducting inspection of the premises. The meter readings revealed that the consumption during October, November and December of 2007 was half of the consumption during these months in the previous years. The allegations in the complaint that two persons from electricity office repaired the meter on 18-01-2007 and thereafter there was voltage fluctuation are denied as false. It is submitted that on noticing a fall in consumption pattern and to check the actual consumption a parallel meter was installed by opposite party on 18-01-2007. It is a usual procedure. Neither complainant nor the staff have reported any voltage fluctuation after the installation of parallel meter, and the allegation is totally fabricated. On fixing the parallel meter it was found that the consumption recorded in original meter was half of the consumption recorded in the parallel meter. After replacing the tampered meter with a new meter the consumption was noted to be double than that of the previous month. The bill amount increased upto five times than that was prior to changing the meter. That tampering of the meter was clearly evident from the consumption pattern. Further that on examination of the meter it was found that two seals of the meter were redone and CT connection from the PCB to one CT coil of the three phase meter was broken. Opposite party submits that malpractice was done on the meter and custodian of the meter is responsible for the same. Details of inspection and tampering are stated in the site mahazar. From local enquiry it was also revealed that first complainant is a retired employee of Kerala State Electricity Board. So he might have the know-how of such things. First complainant has signed the mahazar also. First complainant filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Sqaud, Kozhikode on 01-02-2007. The same was transmitted to second opposite party for further action. Hearing was conducted on 22-5-2007 and the proceedings are under process at the office of second opposite party. The bill issued is proper and legal and complainant is liable to pay the same. Complainant remitted the amount without any protest even though there was enough time as allotted per rules. Complainant did not make any request for instalment facility and did not file any protest or objections. The averment that opposite party insisted to pay the amount in lumpsum is denied as false. Since first complainant is a previous Kerala State Electricity Board employee he is well aware of the instalment facilities available on request. That it is a clear case of tampering of meter. The assessment and calculations are proper and as per provisions of law. All the procedures have been observed. That the complaint is only to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by second complainant on behalf of both the complainants and Exts.A1 and A2 marked on their side. First opposite party filed affidavit on behalf of himself and other opposite parties. Exts.B1 to B5 marked for opposite parties. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> <br /> 4. Points for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.<br /> (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> Complainant is aggrieved by the issuance of penal bill for Rs.1,02,732.71 dated, 20-01-2007. Ext.A1 is this penal bill and Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by opposite party on 20-01-2007 for payment of the same. Complainant prays to set aside the bill and to refund the amount with interest.<br /> <br /> 6. Opposite party resists the complaint contending that on surprise inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS), theft of electricity by tampering the meter was detected. Hence the penal bill was issued as per law after disconnection of supply. Opposite party relies upon Exts.B1 to B3. It is the case of opposite party that on noticing a sudden fall in the consumption pattern of the consumer, for the months of September, November of 2006 and January, 2007 a parallel meter was installed on 18-01-2007 to check the actual consumption. On 19-01-2007 a surprise inspection was conducted along with APTS., Kozhikkode. Ext.B3 is the site mahazar prepared by the Sub Engineer at the premises in the presence of complainants. On inspection the reading of the parallel meter showed that the consumption recorded in the original meter was half that recorded in the parallel meter. As per the tabulation of meter readings furnished by opposite party the initial reading of parallel meter was 13. The reading of the original meter on this date (18-01-2007) was 5519. The readings of both meters were checked the very next day ie; 19-01-2007. The reading in the original meter was then found to be 5524 (showed consumption of 5 units) whereas the reading in the parallel meter was 23(showed consumption of 10 units). These readings makes it crystal clear that the original meter was recording only half of the energy consumed. The meter was changed by opposite party on 20-01-2007. Opposite party has furnished meter readings of succeeding months after change of meter. The meter readings furnished by opposite party from 17-11-2004 do clearly reveal that there is a sudden fall in the consumption pattern from 17-7-2006. After changing the meter on 20-01-2007 the consumption pattern is similar to that prior to 17-7-2006. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to controvert these meter readings. The case put forward by complainant is that on 18-01-2007 two persons from electricity office came and repaired the meter and left some wires hanging. That they stated that it was only a temporary arrangement. That there was voltage fluctuation after this. This story does not inspire any confidence in us. It can be reasonably inferred that on 18-01-2007 opposite party had affixed a parallel meter to check the actual consumption.<br /> <br /> 7. Opposite party does not confine the ground for allegation of theft of electricity, solely upon the consumption pattern. It is stated in Ext.B3 that the meter was tampered. As per Ext.B3 on inspection it was found that the meter seals on the upper side and right side of the meter were redone after breaking of these seals. When supply was given to the Y phase the meter was not working. On opening the meter it was found that the secondary wire of Y phase current transformer of the meter was detached from the Printed Board, so that supply will not pass through it. On inspection it was also found that complainant had exceeded his total connected load to 10.348 KW from the original sanctioned load of 5.705 KW. It was submitted on behalf of opposite party that it is a clear case of tampering of meter.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this complainant contends that after fixing of the parallel meter there was heavy voltage fluctuation whereby some bulbs and other electrical articles were damaged. That any defect in the meter might have been caused due to this voltage fluctuation which was the result of the act of the staff of opposite party. But on inspection there was no sign of the meter getting burnt by high voltage. Instead the seals of the meter were broken and redone. One phase wire of the three phase meter was detached so as to stop recording consumption of supply through this phase. Ext.B3 and B4 supports and substantiates the argument put forward by opposite party. Ext.B4 series are the photograph along with negatives which shows that the meter was seized and sealed by opposite party. Upon the label of the seal the Sub Engineer who prepared the mahazar, the first complainant and the Engineer of Anti Power Theft Squad, Kozhikkode have affixed their signature with date ie; 19-01-2007. The signature and dates on this label is very clear in the photograph. The signature of the complainant in Ext.B3 mahazar, and as seen in Ext.B4 label in the photograph fully tallies with his signature in the complaint and vakalath. Complainant has not taken any steps to have the seized meter examined by an expert. There is nothing before us to disbelieve or discredit Ext.B3 and Ext.B4. We are able to conclude that these documents along with the consumption pattern prior to and after change of meter reasonably substantiates the case of opposite party that the meter was tampered, and there was theft of electricity.<br /> <br /> 9. Another contention raised on the side of complainant was that opposite party did not comply with the procedures prescribed under Sec.126 and therefore the issuance of Ext.A1 bill is vitiated by non-compliance of mandatory provisions. It is the case of complainant that opposite party failed to issue provisional order before passing the final order of assessment. That supply was disconnected and complainant was forced by opposite party to pay the amount in lumpsum. This was controverted by opposite party who submitts that the supply was disconnected after inspection on 19-01-2007 as per Sec.13(IA) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended in 2007 (Amendment Act, 2007 No.26 of 2007). It was also submitted by opposite party that complainant remitted the amount on the same day without any protest even though sufficient time was allowed for payment. It is further contended that complainant neither filed any objections nor did he request for instalment facility even though he was fully aware of such procedures being a previous employee of Kerala State Electricity Board.<br /> <br /> 10. Sec.126 of the Act provides that a person upon whom a provisional order is passed is entitled to file objections. It is further provided that the final order of assessment shall be passed only after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the consumer. In the instant case before us, Ext.A1 bill is issued on 20-01-2007 ie; the next day of inspection. In Ext.A1, in the column, 'last date for payment before disconnection' the date mentioned is 27-01-2007. But complainant has paid the amount on 20-01-2007. He has neither filed any objections nor did he request for instalment facility. Opposite party contends that the supply was disconnected as per Sec.135(IA) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended in 2007. Regulation 25 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005, provides for the instances where the supply of the consumer can be disconnected. We find that Regulation 25(1) (d) and (i) attracts the situation in this case and the act of opposite party disconnecting the supply on 19-01-2007 is legal and justifiable.<br /> <br /> 11. We have given careful consideration to the contention of complainant that the mandatory procedures contemplated under Sec.126 were not complied by opposite party. Admittedly complainant<br /> <br /> has not filed any objections. The last date noted by opposite party in Ext.A1 bill is 27-01-2007. Thus evidently complainant was given sufficient time to file any objections or to pay the amount. He remitted the amount on the same day. Proviso to Sec.126(4) reads as under:<br /> “Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him.<br /> Provided that in case the person deposits the assessed amount, he shall not be subjected to any further liability or any action by any authority whatsoever”.<br /> Though this proviso was effective on the date of incident of this case it was later omitted by Amendment Act, 2007 (Supra). But Regulation 27 A (1)(d) of the Kerala State electricity Supply Code 2005 states that if the person deposits the amount he is not to be subjected to any further action. Thus it can be assumed that on payment of the amount raised in Ext.A1 opposite party dropped all further proceedings. There was no necessity for conducting any hearing or issuing a final order. So we do not find any merits in the contention of the complainant that Ext.A1 bill is unsustainable due to the non-compliance of procedures contemplated under Sec.126 of the Act.<br /> <br /> 12. It is also the case of complainant that the calculation/assessment of penalty in the bill is erroneous. Admittedly complainant has already preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer. Ext.B5 is the order dated, 13-9-2007 passed in this appeal. The Deputy Chief Engineer has passed an order to issue revised bill by estimating the abstraction of energy by aggregating the consumption pattern of different equipments shown in Table A of the order and to bill for a total of 9984 units. It is also ordered to adjust the excess amount to future current charges of the consumer. The issue of correctness in assessment of penal charges has already been adjudicated by the deputy Chief Engineer who is a competent authority to entertain the appeal. We do not find any reason to disturb the order passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer in regard to issue of revised bill.<br /> <br /> 13. In view of the foregoing discussions we hold that complainant has failed to establish a case in his favour. Opposite party has established and proved by reliable evidence that Ext.A1 bill issued by them is based on legal grounds. We are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to the benefit of reassessment as per Ext.B5 order.<br /> <br /> 14. In the result, we dismiss the complaint with direction to opposite party to issue revised bill to the complainant as per Ext.B5 order and to adjust the excess amount to the future bills of the complainant. Time for compliance for issuing revised bill is fixed as two months from the date of this order. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 5th day of November, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, <br /> MEMBER Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2<br /> Ext.A1 : Penal bill for Rs.1,02.732.71 dated, 20-01-07 issued by opposite party<br /> to complainant in respect of consumer No.8141<br /> Ext.A2 : Receipt for Rs.1,02.732.71 dated, 20-01-07 from opposite party<br /> to complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B5<br /> Ext.B1 : Computer print for meter reading in respect of consumer No.8141 <br /> Ext.B2 : Demand and Disconnection notice for Rs.2892/- dated, 15-5-07<br /> issued by opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the site mahazar dated, 19-01-2007 prepared by <br /> Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Manjeri (South). <br /> Ext.B4 : Photo of sealed meter.<br /> Ext.B5 : Proceedings dated, 13-9-2007 of Deputy Chief Engineer,<br /> Electrical Circle, KSEB., Manjeri.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, <br /> MEMBER Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />