DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2011
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Dt.of Filing : 09/02/2007
C.C.No.15/2007
M.Venugopal,
S/o.Marimuthu Naikar,
20/29, Suryachira,
Pudussery,
Palakkad. - Complainant
(By Adv.Rajesh.M)
Vs
1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavanam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.M.S.Skaria)
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Electrical Major Section,
Kanjikode, - Opposite parties
Palakkad
(By Adv.M.S.Skaria)
O R D E R
By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having consumer No.K5377. The meter in the premises of the complainant provided by the opposite parties was in good condition till they visited the premises on 29.06.2006. The Anti Power Theft Squad led by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Anti Power Theft Squad conducted a surprise inspection and pointed out that the meter seal which was there in the meter neither have any seal of the company nor bears the seal of the KSEB. Also pointed out that the lower portion of the meter is having a gap on the back side of the meter. Further allegation is that the complainant herein have chances to put some foreign objects like x-ray films and such other things to obstruct the correct reading of the meter. The billing pattern of the complainant will show that he is using the same units of electricity to his house and there is no much difference in the bills and the consumption. The complainant states that the site mahazar is silent on the fact that there was no foreign particles present inside the meter and at the time of inspection of the squad, the meter was working properly and no tampering was detected. The electricity connection to the complainant's house has been disconnected. He is forced to pay the imposed penalty bill for an amount of Rs.11,973/- to the opposite parties and thereafter the connection is restored. Thereafter the complainant filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad. On 3.10.2006 a letter was received by the complainant stating that the personal hearing of the appeal was fixed on 23.09.2006. The communication is received by the petitioner on 3/10/06. This fact has been informed to the Deputy Chief Engineer and demanded that the appeal should be heard in the Palakkad camp sitting. But the same was turned down by the authority and an exparte order was passed. Hence this complainant prays before the forum for refund of the said amount or adjust it towards future bills.
2. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite parties admitted that the consumer number K5377 owned by the complainant was issued for domestic use. But on 29.06.2006, during a surprise inspection, at the complainant's premises the Special Squad noticed that the meter seal were tampered and a gap on the meter side cover was made so as to insert a foreign particle inside the meter which can stop the rotation of meter disc, thereby stopping the meter recording as and when required. Thereafter it was noticed that the meter disc show tamper marks on it. The opposite parties stated that all these facts were made clear to the complainant and he had admitted and acknowledged in the site mahazar. Thereafter the electric supply was disconnected and the meter was taken under safe custody with the complainant's signature on the wrapper. Further the opposite parties stated that the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad requested the complainant to attend for a personal hearing at the camp office Palakkad on 23/09/06 vide letter dt.18/9/06. The complainant did not turn up for the hearing. Thereafter two opportunities were given to the complainant for attending the hearing. But the complainant has not attended the same. According to the opposite party the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Forum allowed the complaint on the finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. But the opposite parties filed an appeal No.229/2009 before the Hon’ble State Commission and the State Commission has remanded back the case to the Forum for fresh disposal.
Both the parties appeared before the Forum. Opposite parties filed an application for cross examination of complainant. Application allowed and cross examined the complainant. Also the opposite parties produced documents marked as Ext.B4 to Ext.B6. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?
Issue I & II
On hearing both sides and on perusal of the records we find that the parties have produced certain documents and filed proof affidavit. At the time of cross examination of complainant stated that he has signed in the site Mahazar and not read over the site Mahazar. No contradictory evidence was produced by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not examined the Electrical Sub Engineer K.G.Damodaran signed in the site Mahazar. According to Ext.B5 and B6 Meter Reading Register shows that before the detection of theft the reading of the complainant consumer No.K5377 on 9/2/2005 - 190 units, 15/4/05 – 248 units, 6/4/05 – 220 units, 6/8/05 – 163 units, 5/10/05 – 205 units, 6/12/05 – 247 units, 6/2/06 - 245 units, 5/4/06 – 280 units, 7/6/06 – 280 units, 7/8/06 – 312 units. The meter readings taken after the detection of theft on 10/06 – 330 units, 12/06 – 330 units, 2/07 – 335 units, 4/07 – 420 units, 6/07 – 361 units, 8/07 – 320 units, 10/07 – 335 units, 12/07 – 360 units. In fact the meter readings after detection of theft was increased shortly. In Ext.A1 the site Mahazar stated that the complainant has used 23 Nos. of light, 6 Nos. of fan, 10 Nos. of plug, Fridge, Grinder, Motor, Computer and power plug. Therefore the complainant has used the household utensils in different ways. No evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show the number of members lived in the house of complainant and the use of their electricity. So the mere statement of meter reading are not considered as theft committed by the complainant. The opposite parties has not produced the Meter before the Forum to prove the hole of size more than 1 millimeter in diameter for inserting foreign objects into the meter for stopping the meter. The answers filed by the opposite parties stated that the meter has been sealed in the presence of the consumer and has been kept in the safe custody of K.S.E.B. But the opposite parties have not produced the meter before the Forum and not examined the 2nd opposite party. The complainant stated that the defective meter was not replaced by the opposite parties. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove the cause of increasing the meter readings after the detection of theft. No evidence adduced by the opposite parties to prove that the meter was tampered enabling the complainant to stop the rotation of the meter disk. Ext.A1 site Mahazar was prepared on 29/06/2006. Thereafter a new meter was installed in the complainant's house on 01/07/2006. In Ext.A2 series the complainant has paid the penalty bill on 29/6/2006. The opposite parties stated that the meter seals were seen tampered, a gap on the meter side cover was made so as to insert a foreign particle inside the meter which can stop the rotation of meter disc, there by stopping the meter recording as and when required. No evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show the meter was tampered by the complainant. The opposite parties given the penalty bill for tampering the meter. Then the report of the M&T Lab is necessary in evidence. In the present case the meter was not tested in the M&T Lab. There is no necessity to consider the increase of meter readings after the detection of theft. Section 126(4) 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. In the present case the complainant has paid the penal amount on 29/06/2006. From the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint allowed. The penalty bill is set aside.
We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to adjust Rs.11,973/- towards the future electricity bill of the complainant and Rs.3,000/- is to be paid as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of March 2011.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Original of site mahazar
Ext.A2 (Series) – Penal bill along with payment receipt
Ext.A3 (Series) – Copy of the appeal, postal receipt and acknowledgement
before Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Thiruvananthapuram.
Ext.A4 (Series) – Letter dt.18/9/06 issued by opposite party along with postal cover
Ext.A5 (Series) – Letter dt.4/10/06 by complainant to the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Thiruvananthapuram along with postal receipt (True copy)
Ext.A6 (Series) – Letter dt.1/12/06 by complainant to APTS (True copy) with postal receipt
Ext.A7 – Order dt.21/1/07 by Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1 – M.Venugopal
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Site mahazar
Ext.B2 – Copy of letter dtd.18/9/06 (True copy)
Ext.B3 - Copy of letter dtd.27/9/06 (True copy)
Ext.B4 - Coy of Proceedings of Dy.Chief Engineer, APTS(HO), KSEB Vigilance Wing,
Thiruvananthapuram dtd.24/1/2007
Ext.B5 – Meter Reading Register (Original) for the period from 2/05 to 10/06
Ext.B6 – Meter Reading Register (Original) for the period from 12/06 to 12/07
Costs (allowed)
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) allowed as cost.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.15/2007
M.Venugopal,
S/o.Marimuthu Naikar,
20/29, Suryachira,
Pudussery,
Palakkad. - Complainant
(By Adv.Rajesh.M)
Vs
1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavanam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Electrical Major Section,
Kanjikode, - Opposite party
Palakkad
O R D E R
By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having consumer No.K5377. The meter in the premises of the complainant provided by the opposite parties was in good condition till they visited the premises on 29.06.2006. The Anti Power Theft Squad led by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Anti Power Theft Squad conducted a surprise inspection and pointed out that the meter seal which was there in the meter neither have any seal of the company nor bears the seal of the KSEB. Also pointed out that the lower portion of the meter is having a gap on the back side of the meter. Further allegation is that the complainant herein have chances to put some foreign objects like x-ray films and such other things to obstruct the correct reading of the meter. The billing pattern of the complainant will show that he is using the same units of electricity to his house and there is no much difference in the bills and the consumption. The complainant states that the site mahazar is silent on the fact that there was no foreign particles present inside the meter and at the time of inspection of the squad, the meter was working properly and no tampering was detected. The electricity connection to the complainant’s house has been disconnected. He is forced to pay the imposed penalty bill for an amount of the Rs.11,973/- to the opposite parties and thereafter the connection is restored. Thereafter the complainant filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad. On 3.10.2006 a letter was received by the complainant stating that the personal hearing of the appeal
was fixed on 23.09.2006. The communication is received by the petitioner on 3/10/06. This fact has been informed to the Deputy Chief Engineer and demanded that the appeal should be heard in the Palakkad camp sitting. But the same was turned down by the authority and an exparte order was passed. Hence this complainant prays before the forum for refund of the said amount or adjust it towards future bills.
After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite parties admitted that the consumer number 5377 owned by the complainant was issued for domestic use. But on 29.06.2006, during a surprise inspection, at the complainant’s premises the Special Squad noticed that the meter seal were tampered and a gap on the meter side cover was made so as to insert a foreign particle inside the meter which can stop the rotation of meter disc, thereby stopping the meter recording as and when required. Thereafter it was noticed that the meter disc show tamper marks on it. The opposite parties stated that all these facts were made clear to the complainant and he had admitted and acknowledged in the site mahazar. Thereafter the electric supply was disconnected and the meter was taken under safe custody with the complainant’s signature on the wrapper. Further the opposite parties stated that the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad requested the complainant to attend for a personal hearing at the camp office Palakkad on 23/09/06 vide letter dt.18/9/06. The complainant did not turn up for the hearing. Thereafter two opportunities were given to the complainant for attending the hearing. But the complainant has not attended the same. According to the opposite party the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Exts.A1 to A7 was marked. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit with documents to support their contentions. Ext.B1 to B3 was marked. Complainant filed questionnaire and opposite parties filed answers to the questionnaire. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The issues for consideration are;
whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? and
If so what is the relief and costs?
Issues 1 & 2: We have perused the proof affidavit as well as the relevant documents produced before the forum. The complainant states that Ext.A4 series shows that the letter dtd.18/9/06 was received by the complainant on 3/10/06. The date of hearing fixed as per the letter was 23/9/06. The opposite parties have not produced any documents for contesting the delay for issuance of letter marked as Ext.A4 series. There after the opposite parties sent another
letter dt.27/9/06 to the complainant to present for hearing on 7/10/06. Copy of the letter is produced and marked as Ext.B3. But the opposite parties have not produced any acknowlegement card or postal receipt to show that the same has been received by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant sent two letters to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad requesting to hear the appeal in the Palakkad Camp sitting. The complainant states that the opposite parties have not considered these letters and passed an exparte order on 24/01/2007. The opposite parties state that the complainant was provided ample opportunities to present his case but he did not make use of any of these opportunities. Analysing the evidence on record we are of the view that the complainant has not been given a single opportunity to present his case. Mere tampering of seals does not prove that the complainant was making theft of the electricity. The meter was not tested in the M & T Lab and no notice of testing was given to the complainant. Hence the principles of the natural justice has not been followed by the officials.
6. Hence we hold the view that the allegation of theft being criminal in nature has to be proved with cogent and reliable evidence which the opposite parties failed to produce. In these circumstances, we attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint allowed.
7. The impugned bill is set aside. Opposite parties are directed to adjust Rs.11,973/- (Rupees Eleven thousand nine hundred and seventy three only) towards the future electricity bill of the complainant. Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) is to be paid as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Cost to be paid within one month from the date of communication of the order
8. Pronounced in the open court on this 3rd day of March, 2009
Sd/-
Seena.H
President
Sd/-
Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Original of site mahazar
Ext.A2 (Series) – Penal bill along with payment receipt
Ext.A3 (Series) – Copy of the appeal, postal receipt and acknowledgement before Deputy
Chief Engineer, APTS, Thiruvananthapuram.
Ext.A4 (Series) – Letter dt.18/9/06 issued by opposite party along with postal cover
Ext.A5 (Series) – Letter dt.4/10/06 by complainant to the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Thiruvananthapuram along with postal receipt (True copy)
Ext.A6 (Series) – Letter dt.1/12/06 by complainant to APTS (True copy) with postal receipt
Ext.A7 – Order dt.21/1/07 by Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Site mahazar
Ext.B2 – Copy of letter dtd.18/9/06 (True copy)
Ext.B3 - Copy of letter dtd.27/9/06 (True copy)
Costs (allowed)
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost.
