IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.52/08 (Filed on 19.05.2008)Between: C.K. Sukumaran, Charivuparampil House, Thazhe Vettipuram, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. (By Adv. T. Zakir Hussain) .... Complainant And: 1. The Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B, Electrical Division, Pathanamthitta. 2. The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, K.S.E.B, Kumbazha. .... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and he is an LT 1(a) consumer and his average bi-monthly consumption of electrical energy is 74 units. While so the 1st opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant on 15.2.08 and prepared a site mahazar. Thereafter the 1st opposite party instructed the 2nd opposite party to issue back assessment bill for 6 months for energy charges with an average consumption of 936 units bi-monthly with penalty and to collect the cost of the single phase meter from the complainant alleging that the complainant had tampered the meter and he is having unauthorised connected load. In pursuance to the directions from the 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party served a bill for ` 48,738 to the complainant. On getting the said bill the complainant filed a petition before the Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB, Pathanamthitta for exempting the complainant from remitting the said bill amount, who in turn forwarded the same to the 2nd opposite party for hearing the matter on merit. The complainant was also directed to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order dated 26.4.08. According to the complainant, the connected load was calculated based on the hypothesis of conjunction and surmises and they have acted without adhering the rules and regulations. The above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for setting aside the impugned bill for ` 48,738 issued by the opposite parties along with compensation of ` 2,500 from the opposite parties for the mental agony and pains suffered by the complainant. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed a version with the following contentions:- The opposite parties admitted that the complainant is a consumer under domestic tariff and the surprise inspection in the complainant’s premises on 15.2.08 and the issuance of the bill for ` 48,738. According to the opposite parties, during the inspection energy meter installed at the complainant’s premises was found tampered in such a way that the energy consumption was not being recorded. The authorised connected load for the premises was 1300 watt. But at the time of inspection the connected load was found as 4010 watts. Based on the above facts, a site mahazar was prepared. As a result of the above acts of the complainant, the opposite parties sustained heavy revenue loss. So the 2nd opposite party issued a demand letter on 18.2.08 to the complainant for an amount of ` 48,738 which includes the cost of the damaged meter. Thereafter the complainant was also heard as per the provisions of the Electricity Act and the preliminary assessment/demand was confirmed. The tampering of the energy meter and the unauthorized installation of connected load beyond the authorized connected load are illegal acts and the opposite parties are entitled to issue penal bills for the above said illegal acts and hence the issuance of the bill for ` 48,738 is legal and the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost, as they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant. 3. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Relief and Costs? 4. The evidence of this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B8. After closure of the evidence, both sides were heard. 5. Point Nos.1 to 3:- The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of the opposite party under LT 1(a) tariff and his usual consumption is very low. While so, the opposite parties conducted a surprise inspection in the premises of the complainant on 15.2.08 and prepared a site mahazar and thereafter issued a bill for ` 48,738 alleging that the complainant had an unauthorized connected load and the complainant had tampered the electric meter installed at his premises. But according to the complainant, the allegations of the opposite party is false and the penal bill is illegal and the issuance is the said penal bill is a deficiency of service. 6. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 to A4 are the regular bi-monthly bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant from 10/07 to 4/08. Based on Exts.A1 to A4, complainant’s argument is that he had no unauthorized and excess connected load and the complainant’s meter is properly functioning and is not tampered as alleged by the opposite parties. 7. On the other hand, the opposite parties contention is that the complainant is an LT 1(a) customer and his authorized connected load is 1300 watts. But on inspection they found that the complainant’s connected load is 4070 watts and also found that the meter is tampered. Using of unauthorized connected load and tampering of electric meter by a consumer is against the provisions of Electricity Act. So the opposite parties prepared a site mahazar in the presence of the complainant and issued a copy of the same to the complainant who accepted it also, by acknowledging the receipt of the same. Thereafter the opposite parties issued a penal bill to the complainant and he is liable to pay the penal bill. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, 2 witnesses from their side was examined as DW1 and DW2 and the documents produced by the opposite parties is marked as Exts.B1 to B8. Ext.B1 is the copy of site mahazar dated 15.2.07. Ext.B2 is the copy of a letter dated 16.2.08 issued by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Pathanamthitta to Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Kumbazha directing the Asst. Engineer to issue penal bill to the complainant on the basis of Ext.B1 site mahazar. Ext.B3 is the penal bill dated 18.2.08 issued to the complainant for ` 48,738. Ext.B4 is the copy of an application-dated 21.2.08 submitted by the complainant before the Asst. Engineer, Kumbazha. Ext.B5 is the copy of minutes of the hearing dated 22.4.08 at Electrical Section, Kumbazha. Ext.B6 is the Proceedings/Order dated 26.4.08 of the Asst.Engineer, Kumbazha. Ext.B7 is the letter dated 6.5.08 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Pathanamthitta directing the complainant to remit appeal fees of ` 975 and 50% of the assessed amount for considering the complainant’s appeal. Ext.B8 is the photocopy of the FIR in Crime No.173/09 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, registered against the complainant for theft of electricity by tempering the meter. 8. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. The main dispute between the parties is with regard to the issuance of the penal bill for ` 48,738. According to the complainant, his consumption is very low and the amount demanded by the opposite parties through the penal bill is not corresponding to the actual consumption and the said bill is to be quashed. According to the opposite parties, the penal bill issued is not for the consumption. But it is issued as per the provisions of Sec.123 of the Electricity Act 2003 for detecting unauthorized connected load and for the tampering of the meter and it was issued on the basis of Ext.B1 site mahazar. On a perusal of Ext.B1 site mahazar, it is seen that the seal cover of the energy meter it was removed and the reading as on the date of inspection is 1946.7 whereas the regular reading dated 5.2.08 seen as 1945 and the total connected load of the complainant is 4070 watts. Entries in Ext.A3 shows that the reading as on 5.2.08 is 1945 and his authorised connected load is 1300. Ext.B1 site mahazar was prepared in the presence of the complainant and his signature is also seen in it. More over he admitted in cross-examination that the inspection was conducted in his presence and the said inspection was conducted in his house. It is also seen in Ext.B1 site mahazar that the reading as on the date of inspection is 1946.7, i.e., the consumption for 10 days is only 1.7 units. All these facts supports the allegations of the opposite parties such as tampering of energy meter and unauthorized connected load. In this case, the complainant failed to adduce any evidence in his favour for defeating the allegations of the opposite parties. The complainant had even failed to produce the impugned bill before this Forum, though his main prayer in his complaint is for quashing the impugned bill. In the absence of any cogent evidence in favour of the complainant, the issuance of the penal bill by the opposite parties is legal and hence we find no deficiency against the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed 9. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. 10. In the light of the above order, order in IA.53/10 stands cancelled and the complainant is allowed to receive back the amount deposited vide order in the I.A. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of August, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : C.K. Sukumaran Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Bill dated 6.10.2007 for ` 88 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Bill dated 5.12.2007 for ` 95 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. A3 : Bill dated 5.2.2008 for ` 112 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. A4 : Bill dated 4.4.2008 for ` 97 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : O.U. Jayakrishshnan DW2 : Surendran. K. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Copy of site mahazar dated 15.2.07 issued by the 1st opposite party. B2 : Photocopy of a letter dated 16.2.08 issued by the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party. B3 : Penal bill dated 18.2.08 for ` 48,738 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. B4 : Photocopy of an application dated 21.2.08 submitted by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. B5 : Photocopy of minutes of the hearing dated 22.4.08. B6 : Photocopy of the Proceedings/Order dated 26.4.08. B7 : Photocopy of the letter dated 6.5.08 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. B8 : Photocopy of the FIR in Crime No.173/09 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. (By Order) Senior superintendent Copy to:- (1) C.K. Sukumaran, Charivuparampil House, Thazhe Vettipuram, Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. (2) The Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B, Electrical Division, Pathanamthitta. (3) The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, K.S.E.B, Kumbazha. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
