<br /> <br /> By SRI K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is a consumer of electrical Energy under LT1[a] Domestic Tariffs with consumer No.5880 of electrical Section Mayyanad. It is a alleged by the 2nd opp.party is that on inspection by the 3rd opp.party in the premises of the complainant on 24.10.2002 it was noticed that there is an unauthorized addition 2 KV in the connected load for the period from 25.4.2002 to 26-10-2002. The 3rd opp.party issued a registered notice along with Bill No. 047406 dated 28.10.2002 demanding an amount of Rs.42180. The calculation of the load factor is totally wrong and in correct. The Officer of the KSEB never visited the complainant’s premises as alleged or repair any site mahazar. The complainant in 1997 transferred the ownership of the property and the building with the present consumer number to her mother. The additional load found out can only be on account of the consumption of energy for a period of 5 days in connection with the house warming ceremonies for this purpose the complainant had duly submitted an application before the 4th opp.party on 25.10.2002 . The 4th opp.party has accepted a sum of Rs.190/- each from the complainant and his brother who is residing next door for which he has necessary receipt. The house warning ceremony on 27.10.2002 subsequent to the remission of the prescribed fee for temporary connection a Lineman from the office of the 4th opp.party came to the residential premises of the complainant and drawn line to the complainant’s residence and also to the house of the complainant’s brother.. The consumption of electricity by the complainant is below 100 units and electric bill is below Rs. 80/- which he is paying regularly. The demands notice dated 25.10.200 was issued under clause VI[d] of the schedule to the Indian Electricity Act 1910 The said clause provides no penalty provisions. So it is quite doubtful that on the ground of circumstance the opp.party arrived at the impugned bill amount. Therefore the demand is totally wrong in correct illegal and without any statutory authority. The 4th opp.party demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for fresh permanent energy connection to the newly built house of the complainant which the complainant accepted Therefore the 4th opp.party colluded with other opp.parties and to view to harass the complainant andto make wrongful lost to him issued to the demand notice and bill. Hence the complainant .<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The opp.parties filed a joint version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The premises of the complainant was inspected by the special squad of the Electrical Circle on 24.10.2002. This squad detected that electric connection has been supplied from Consumer No.5880 to other two houses situated about 40 meter away. The squad prepared a site mahazar but the complainant was reluctant to sign the site mahazar. As per rules the 4th opp.party prepared the penal bill for Rs.42180/- and served to the complainant. Under clause 24 [ii] of the conditions of supply of Electrical Energy Act of the KSEB Supply taken from an existing plug point/main to any appliance situated outside the premises will be treated us an extension. In event of any un authorized extension, alterations on resulting in any damage to the system of the board . The consumer will have to pay the board all expenses on account of such damages . The tariff applicable to the temporary extension is LT VIII at the rate of Rs.38 per KW of connected load per day. Since the consumer unauthorizedly extended or exceeded the contracted load he was penalized as per clause 42 [d] of the above rules. The unauthorized extension of additional load was detected on 24.10.2002 the consumer had given the plugs and remitted the fee only on 28.10.2002. Therefore the consumer cannot escape from the penalty imposed on her for the violation the board misused of energy of clause 42 [d] which proposes a penalty for the misuse of energy . The bill issued to the complainant itself is a demand come disconnection notice. The complainant had connected his electrical supply out side her premises. So as per the tariff for temporary extension for the additional load of 2 Kilo Watt was charged at the rate of Rs. 38/- per day. T he complainant was billed 3 times applicable to the respective tariff for the previous 6 months from the date of detection of misuse. She was misuse only for the additional connected extended additional law the allegation that service connection was effected strictly on priority basis. As per the direction of the High Court the 2nd opp.party considered and disposed the representation of the complainant t by revising the penal bill from Rs.180/- to Rs.50480/- <br /> <br /> The period of the penal bill restricted to 60 days from 6 months. Since the consumer extended and exceeded the contracted load she was penalized as per the clause 42 [d] of the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. . These opp.parties have acted in accordance with the law and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. <br /> <br /> Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> [1] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> [2] Reliefs and costs<br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P9 are marked.<br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext.D1 to D5 are narked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points [1] & [2]<br /> <br /> This complaint has arisen out of Exts.P1 and P4 notices issued by the opp.parties to the complainant alleging that the complainant unauthorisedly extended wiring from her house to two nearby houses. The contention of the complaint is that she constructed a new house for which electric connection was applied for properly and in connection with the house warming of that house applied for temporary connection and remitted necessary fee as per Ext.P7 and P8 and connections were provided by the opp.parties and out of the invite of opp.party3 towards her as she refused to pay bribe for connection P1 notice was issued to her.<br /> <br /> According to opp.parties the premises of complainant was examined by opp.party 3 and Asst . Exe. Engineer Electrical Circle, Kollam visited the premises of complainant and noticed that unauthorized extension from her house has been taken to 2 nearby houses and Ext.D1 mahazar was prepared by Vincent G. Fernadez the then Asst. Engineer. It is clearly stated in Ext.D1 that the service wire of the KSEB is used for drawing extension. Nothing is stated in Ext.D1 regarding the presence of the complainant or any locabite at the time of preparation of Ext.D1 other than a vague statement that the Consumer refused to sign D1.<br /> <br /> It is worth pointing out in this contact that the original of Ext.D1 is not produced. Ext. D1 is also an incomplete one. There is no explanation for not producing original of Ext.D1. It is also to be noted that Vincent G. Fernandez who prepared the mahazar of the Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kollam who is alleged to have accompanied him were not examined for reasons best known to the opp.parties. It is also not forthcoming as to why such a visit was conducted on that day to the premises of the complainant which raises doubts. No credibility can be attributed to Ext.D1 as the person who prepared the same or the person attested the same was not examined. DW.1 through whom Ext.D1 was proved could not give a definite answer to the question why signature of localities were not obtained in Ext.D1. In these circumstances the contention of the complainant that Ext.D1 is a document manipulated at the office of the opp.parties cannot be ignored.<br /> <br /> In Ext. P1 the period is shown as 25.4.2002 to 26.10.2002 in Ext.P1 [a] the letter accompanying Ext.P1 also the date shown in 25.10.2002. If the unauthorized extension was detected on 24.10.2002 one is at a loss to understand as to why the period was not shown from 24.10.2002 to 26.10.2002. It is also worth pointing out that in Ext.P1 demand cases disconnection notice the date of inspection is shown as 25.10.2002 as against 24.10.2002 in Ext.D1. There is no satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy. After accepting money as per Ext.P7 on 25.10.2002 penalty is imposed on 25.10.2002 and 26.10.2002 also. The aforesaid discrepancies, raises doubts about the case put forward by the opp.parties<br /> <br /> It is not disputed that the wire used for drawing the alleged unauthorized extension is the service wire belonging to KSEB. The complainant cannot be in possession such wire unless she has stolen the same. But the opp.parties have no such case. They have also noted any criminal case regarding theft of such wire. So the only probability is that this extension was provided by the opp.parties themselves. It is also pertinent to note that the person who prepared Ext.D1 has not taken the wire into custody even after knowing that it is the wire belonging to KSEB or report to police. These aspects also would lead to an inference that the connection was provided with the knowledge of KSEB. Authorities. DW.1 admitted in cross examination that when application for temporary connections are received the staff of KSEB are deputed to draw the connection. DW.1 has not denied the suggestion that this line was drawn with the knowledge of KSEB but gave an evasive answer. DW.1 is also not sure as to whether any enquiry has been conducted in this regard. It has come in evidence that PW.1 applied for temporary connection as per Ext.P7 and connection was provided by the opp.parties and if a theft of electricity was actually there the opp.parties could not have accepted money for providing temporary connection. Even assuming that there was an unauthorized extension by accepting money as per Ext.P7 the opp.parties have regularized the same. The definite case of the complainant is that she went to the office of Opp.party 4 on 24.10.2002 and filed application for temporary connection and the Engineer deputed staff on the same day to provide connection and thereafter to wreck vengeance on that staff out of political rivalry prepared Ext.D1 at the office and issued Ext.P1. The application filed by the complainant for temporary connection was not produced. Had the same been produced the date of filing of the same and the orders passed thereon would have been revealed. Ext.P7 and P8 would show that the opp.parties have collected Rs.380/- and Rs.25/- from the complainant for temporary connection which is not denied. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence in this case we are of the view that the story theft of electricity alleged by the opp.parties is not believable and that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount to the opp.parties either under Ext.P1 or under Ext.P4. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed and Ext.P1 and P4 bills are quashed.. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated the 31st day of March, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1- Ozeela Beevi<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Disputed bill dt. 28.10.2002<br /> P2. – Letter issued by Exe. Engineer, Electrical Division, Chathanoor<br /> P3. – Order of Hon’ble High court<br /> P4. – Revised bill dt. 29.3.2003<br /> P5. – Order of Exe. Engineer5 dt. 17.1.2004<br /> P6. – Copy of order of Govt. Issued bySecretary of Electricity Board.<br /> P7. – Receipts for temporary connection<br /> P8. – Receipt dt. 26.10.2003.<br /> P9. – Complaint dt. 12.11.2002.<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – Mary John<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> P1. – Ssite mahazar<br /> D2. – Order of Exe. Engineer, Chathanoor<br /> D3. – Copy of clause 42 [d]<br /> D4. – Order of Hon’ble High Court<br /> D5. – Copy of Clause 24 [1] & [ii]<br /> <br /> <br />