SRI. R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is for quashing the bill No.A.43660000001 dated 17.8.2005 and for getting compensation and cost. The case of complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant who is conducting an oil mill was promptly paying electricity bills infavour of his consumer No.11377. The opp.parties issued a bill for an amount of Rs.1,07,626/- alleging that some portions of wire lost insulation and there was leakage of Electric energy and meter shows only some portion of leakaged energy. The bill was issued after the visit of opp.parties in the complainant’s firm. A mahazor was prepared by the opp.parties. The damage in insulation is caused at the time of inspection itself and it was not done by the complainant. The opp.party is not having any case of unauthorized consumption of energy by the complainant for his business. The complainant preferred a complaint before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kollam but it was refused and directed to pay the bill amount in instalments. The disputed bill is erroneous base . The act of the opp.party amount to deficiency in service and hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant’s Electric connection is purely for Industrial purpose. An inspection was conducted by APTS squard in the presence of Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Pallimukku. It was detected that the seals of the Box found in a loose condition which indicates that the seals were tampered and box opened several times. The seal did not have any marking of Kerala State Electricity Board. It was found that current Transformer leads were cut and removed. By this act C.T. secondary current was made to pass to the earth . Due to this the meter could not read the actual consumption. This act of the complainant amounts to theft of energy. The above facts were recorded in the mahazor prepared by the Asst. Engineer, Pallimukku is in the presence of the complainant. The photographs were also taken by the APTS squad. The meter charge of complainant was re assessed for a period of last 6 months based on the connected load. Short assessment bill was issued to the complainant on the same day itself. Supply was disconnected and a criminal case was registered against the complainant. The complainant is liable to pay the short assessment bill. The statement of the complainant that the damage of insulation was done during the inspection is illmotivated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant filed affidavit PW.1 examined. Ext.P1 to P4 were marked. From the side of opp.party DW.1 examined Ext. D1 to D3 were marked. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party 2. Compensation and cost. Points 1 and 2 The complainant’s case is that he was charged with an exorbitant amount for the energy which was not consumed by him. The allegation of opp.party is that current Transformer leads were cut and removed. Because of the act secondary current passed to the earth and the meter could not read the actual consumption. D1 is the mahazor prepared by DW.1 the 2nd opp.party. The statement in D1 is that it is found that in the detailed inspection that the current wire connecting from CT to meter, at the point of touching the wire with metal box the red wire of 1 CT red and Blue wires of II and III CTs were cut and insulation removed. The length of wire cut and insulation wire were 1 ms. , 5 cm and one inch. Because of this wires touched with metal box, made short and the current was made to pass to the earth. Due to this, the meter could record only a small part of the actual consumption. It was understood that the current theft was going for a long time. In the cross exakination DW.1 stated that no wires were fitted to the naked part in which insulation were lost. The counsel for complainant put a pertinent question to DW.1 that “complainant LrPjd{faluj current Sal,\ojv\v\k KeSulzjv\vk c\FlerA YeiGf\fje\ejv\vk tr\r\ allegation Kn\Sml ? DW.1 answered for the question that correct Lluj read svu\ulR eMkr\rjh\h; Lfksdln\mk Sal,\mjv\vlnk\ YeiGf\fje\ejv\vfk” From the deposition we could gather that opp.party has not any particular case that the complainant has conducted current theft. The current lost through earth is assumed as current theft. Purposeful attempt of theft is not proved. The wire cut are a touched with metal box and current was earthed. The cutting of wire came into sight only after the meter was opened. How the Asst. Engineer can allege that the naked portion of wire was in touch with metal box? It is only an assumption. In the Exhibit D1 it is stated that the seals of the meter was found in a loose condition. The meter was sealed. But there was no seal of KSEB. The counsel for the complainant put the question that” aJMG yJ/jAz\ tb\bsrulnk\ tmkf\ff\ tr\rk eyulR dqjukSal? DW.1 answered that dlnlR dqjukr\rh\shb\djH seal “sel}jv\vSC,aln\ reading tmk]kr\rfk\ “ PW.1 in his deposition stated that “clPlgn Box fkyr\rlnk\ reading tmk]k\r\rf\ The opp.party could not undoubtedly state that the meter was not opened by the meter readers. The counsel for complainant further put the question that if” the current was earthed and leakage was happened it may have come to the notice of the meter reader?’’ DW.1 answered that “the meter reader is doing the meter reading only” The average meter of reading of alleged period was 150 units. Now it is 134.35 as per ExtP4. There is no considerable change in the meter reading even after the incident . Average reading as per Ext.P4, the bill dated 12.3.2008 is lower than the alleged period. We have perused the documents gone through the evidences and we are of the view that the opp.parties could not prove the alleged theft. We are also of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. The points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed. The Bill No. A43660000001 dated 17.8.2005 for Rs.1,07,626/- is quashed . The opp.party is directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 30th day of May, 2009. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Sunil Kumar List of documents for the complainant P1. – Bill dated 17.8.2005 issued by KSEB P2. – Photos P3. – Bills P4. – Bill dated 12.3.2008 List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Shibu. List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Site mahazor D2. – Photographer D3. – Copy of FIR | 
