DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011
Present : Smt.Seena.H. President
: Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K, Member Date of filing: 02/09/2010
CC / 110 / 2010
Jayaraj,
S/o. Krishnan,
Idachira Veedu, - Complainant
Arukkudi, Kottekkad Post,
Palakkad
(By Adv. K. Sasidharan)
Vs
1. The Secretary, KSEB,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom-16,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer,
KSEB Electrical Section, - Opposite parties
Marutharoad, Palakkad
(By Adv. M.S. Skaria)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
Complainant is the consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 7934. Complainant is running a rice and flour mill. On 15/06/2010 opposite parties conducted a surprise inspection in the mill . Alleging theft of electricity, opposite parties warned the complainant that if the bill amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- is not paid within 24 hours criminal complaint will be lodged against the complainant. Complainant was forced to sign in many papers. On the next day itself the whole amount was paid by the complainant. On 19/12/2009 opposite parties has replaced the meter with a new one. Thereafter monthly inspection was done and meter reading was also taken. On 10/06/2010 also reading was taken and bill was issued. After 5 days only alleged theft was detected. Further inspections was not done as per the provisions of Cr. P.C. There was no independent witness to the mahazar. Complainant was also forced to sign the mahazar. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant prays for return of the bill amount paid to opposite parties with interest.
Opposite parties filed version contending the following:-
Complainant has carried out theft of electrical energy by tampering the metering apparatus which comes under Section 135(b) and 138 of the Electricity Act 2003. Being a criminal matter Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further on receiving information opposite parties in the presence of the Anti Power Theft Squad and the Village Officer conducted a surprise inspection at the complainant's premises. During the inspection it was found that the seals of the terminal cover are tampered. The sealing wire of the terminal cover seal on the right side was broken as if cut by a sharp weapon. This sealing wire was folded back so as to avoid detection. The seal would look intact prima-facie, but was easily removable by hand without using any tools. Regarding the seal on the left side, the screw on which the seal was fixed was removed from the bottom and kept in place loosely, so that this screw is removable by slightly pulling out. No unscrewing is needed. Hence the cover can be removed without removing the seal on the left side. This clearly indicates the tampering of the terminal cover seals. On seeing these anomalies, the terminal cover was opened for a detailed inspection. Upon opening the terminal cover, it was found that the meter terminals on the “Y” phase are tampered. The outgoing wire of the “Y” phase to the motor load was seen connected directly to the service wire. Therefore, the energy flowing through the “Y” phase is not flowing through the meter and hence not registered by the meter. There was no tampering in the “R” and “B” phases. Since the energy recorded by the meter is the sum of the three phases, the energy recorded by the meter will be only 2/3 of the actual consumption. Thus the complainant is able to illegally abstract 1/3 of the consumption unmetered. This is theft of energy under Section 135 and 138 of the Act. The inspecting team prepared a site mahazar as per rules. A copy of the site mahazar is herewith produced as Annexure I. The complainant was requested to acknowledge on the site mahazar, which he did. A carbon copy of the site mahazar was handed over to the complainant then and there itself. The power supply was disconnected and the inspecting team left the site. A complaint was registered with the station house officer of the Malampuzha police station under whose jurisdiction the complainant's premises is as per Section 135. The provisional bill amounting to Rs.2467/- for the period from 19/12/2009 (when the meter was changed) to date, was issued to the complainant thereafter. It is also informed that if the complainant pays the compounding charges of 20,000/- per KW under Section 152 of the Act criminal proceedings initiated will be withdrawn. This amount worked out to Rs.2,40,000/- for the 12 KW of connected load. Upon receiving the provisional bill, the complainant filed a request letter with the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Marutharoad, on the following day, admitting the theft and expressing his willingness to remit the compounding fees. Accordingly, the complainant was allowed to compound the offence by remitting the compounding fee of Rs. 2,40,000/- and the criminal proceedings withdrawn. Opposite parties has not forcefully obtained the signature of the complainant. Opposite parties never exerted any pressure to pay the compounding fees. It is left open to the complainant either to pay the compounding fees or to contest the criminal proceedings. Opposite parties further submits that it is true that meter readings are taken every month, but the tampering of the meter was so cleverly done that it is not prime-facie detectable. Also being a flour mill there was lot of dust and dirt on the terminal cover and seals on the meter which resulted in poor visibility. Since only 1/3 of the consumption was being illegally abstracted. The remaining 2/3 was being recorded by the meter and hence the meter was not dead. This resulted in the theft being not detected for long. Complainant has not challenged the bill under Section 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to opposite parties there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is filed on an expiremental basis.
The evidence led by the complainant consists of the chief affidavit, Ext.A1 to Ext. A22 and testimony of PW1, complainant. Meter produced was marked MO1. Opposite parties filed chief affidavit. Ext. B1 to B6 marked. The evidence of opposite parties also consists of the testimony of DW1, DW2 and DW3.
Issues for consideration are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
Issues I & II
The cause of the grievance of the complainant is that inspection of opposite parties alleging theft of electricity by the complainant is not in accordance with law and further there was no independence witness to the site mahazar and seizure mahazar. Complainant was not present at the time of inspection and was forced to sign many papers at the instance of opposite parties.
The opposite parties on the other hand narrated in detail how tampering has been effected in such a way that prima-facie it is not detectable. According to opposite parties tampering is done in such a way that only 2/3 of the meter reading is detectable. Opposite parties has issued bill as per the provisions of the Electricity Act. Further matter was compounded of the request of the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on records.
It is seen that complainant has no dispute regarding the assessment made in the disputed bill. The main dispute of the complainant with respect to the procedure adopted for fixing the disputed bill. Since the procedure is not according to the rules, the bill itself becomes illegal. According to him he was not present at the site of inspection and he was compelled to sign in the site mahazar and seizure mahazar later. DW1 the Village Officer, one of the witness to the mahazar has deposed that the complainant was present at the time of inspection. Further at the time of cross examination DW1 deposed that “Ext. A1 {]കാരം ജയരാജന് ഒപ്പിട്ടിരിക്കുന്നത് 16/06/10 ലാണ്. It is to be noted here that complainant himself has signed the same on 16/06/2010, but has deposed that “ inspection \v h¶ kab¯v Rm³ AhnsSbnÃmbncp¶p. tPmen¡mc\mWv AhnsS D mbncp¶Xv. Inspection \v h¶ Znhkw sshIpt¶camWv mahazar H¸nSphn¨Xv. So it can only be presumed that the complainant was present at the site at the time of inspection. Even though complainant has stated that at the relevant time he has gone for a function in connection with the death of the husband of sister-in- law, no piece of evidence is forthcoming to prove said aspect.
It is seen that complainant is heavily relying upon the procedure of search and seizure to show that there is illegality in the bill issued. As per Regulation 52 of the Kerala State Electricity Board terms and conditions of Supply 2005, enormous power is given to the authorities under the Electricity Board to,
(a) enter, inspect, breakopen and search any place or premises in which the Board has reason to believe that electricity has been, is being or is likely to be used, used unauthorised.
(b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which has been, or is likely to be, used for unauthorised use of electricity.
(c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which in the opinion of the Board shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (2) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seizes to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence.
Clause (3) of the same further states that,
The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list.
Admittedly an employee of the complainant on his behalf was present at the time of inspection. Further other than the opposite party's village officer has also signed the mahazar. We do not disbeleive the contents of the mahazar which is prepared as part of their official duty. The say of the complainant that he was compelled to sign the whole documents is not supported by any evidence. Complainant has not examined any of his employees present at the site to prove the same.
Again the complainant is denying the theft of energy relying on the bills issued to the complainant prior and after the issuance of the disputed bill. According to the complainant and from the evidence on records it is seen that there is no much variations in the electricity bills. Considering the fact that how tampering has been effected by the complainant as per Ext. B1 site mahazar, we do not believe that much relience can be placed on this evidence. Opposite parties has already explained in Ext. B1 site mahazar how tampering has been effected by the complainant and how the meter is made to register only 2/3 of the actual consumption. The next day itself complainant had compounded the matter by paying compounding fees.
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November, 2011
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha. G. Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 – Original of Live notice from 2nd opposite party dated 15/06/2010
Ext. A2 – Copy of site mahazar dated 15/06/2010
Ext. A3 – Copy of Electricity bill dated 16/06/2010
Ext. A4 – Original of Electicity bill dated 16/06/2010
Ext. A5 – Copy of Lawyer notice with postal receipt issued by the complainant dated 24/07/2010.
Ext. A6 – Acknowledgement card addressed to the 2nd opposite party.
Ext. A7 – Original of electricity bill dated 05/02/2010.
Ext. A8 - Original of electricity bill dated 06/03/2010.
Ext. A9 - Original of electricity bill dated 05/04/2010.
Ext. A10 – Original of electricity bill dated 13/09/2010
Ext. A11 – Original of electricity bill dated 11/10/2010.
Ext. A12 – Original of electricity bill dated 03/11/2010.
Ext. A13 - Original of electricity bill dated 04/12/2010.
Ext. A14 - Original of electricity bill dated 05/01/2011.
Ext. A15 - Original of electricity bill dated 04/02/2011
Ext. A16 - Original of electricity bill dated 04/03/2011.
Ext. A17 - Original of electricity bill dated 05/04/2011.
Ext. A18 - Original of electricity bill dated 02/05/2011.
Ext. A19 - Original of electricity bill dated 16/06/2010.
Ext. A20 - Original of electricity bill dated 06/05/2010.
Ext. A21 - Original of electricity bill dated 10/06/2010.
Ext. A22 - Original of electricity bill dated 06/06/2011.
Ehibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext. B1 – Copy of site mahazar dated 15/06/2010.
Ext. B2 – Copy of notice issued by the Asst. Executive Engineer, Kanjikode.
Ext. B3 – Copy of live notice sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. B4 – Copy of Electricity bill dated 16/06/2010 amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/-
Ext. B5 - Copy of Electricity bill dated 16/06/2010 amounting to Rs. 2,467/-.
Ext. B6 – Copy of letter issued by the 2nd opposite party to The sub Inspector of Police, Malampuzha.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1 – Jayaraj
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties
DW1 – P.V. Sriram
DW2 – Mohan. T
DW3 – Santhosh Kumar
MO1- Meter
