KERALA STATE CNSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONVAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO 434/04JUDGMENT DATED: 23.2.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, : APPELLANTS Kerala State Electricity Board, Pattom, Trivandrum. 2. The Asst. Ex. Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Thrikodithanam, Changanachery. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. Thomas George, : RESPONDENT Rajagiri House, Perunna.P.O., Changanachery, Kottayam, Manaigng Partner, Sevak Rubbers, Perunthuruthi.P.O., Izhinjillam. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in OP.10/2004 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the additional bill dated 31.12.2003 for Rs.58465/-. It was alleged that the additional bill was issued without any basis and ignoring the provisions of Clause 31(c ) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum below and filed version denying and disputing the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the additional bill dated 31.12.03 for Rs.58,465/- was issued based on the surprise inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad. It was further contended that there was interchanging of the pressure coil of the phases 1 and 3 at the meter terminal ends. And thereby only 50% of the consumption was recorded by the power meter. They justified their action in issuing the additional bill for Rs.58465/- 2. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B4 documents were produced and marked from the side of parties. The complainant and the 2nd opposite party had also filed proof affidavits in support of their respective pleadings. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint in OP.10/2004 and thereby A1 additional bill for Rs.58465/- was cancelled. Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties therein. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the proof affidavit of the 2nd opposite party and B1 mahasar prepared by the Asst. Engineer of Anti Power Theft Squad and argued for the position that there was interchanging of the pressure coil of phases 1 and 3 of the power meter and thereby the power meter recorded only 50% of the energy consumed by the consumer. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He argued for the position that B1 Mahasar was not proved by the opposite parties and the A1 additional bill based on B1 mahasar cannot be upheld. He also argued for the position that the additional bill was issued for short assessment for a period of 6 months and the said method adopted is also not acceptable. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. Points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in issuing A1 additional bill for Rs.58465/-? 2) Whether the Forum below can be justified in setting aside A1 additional bill for Rs.58465/- on the sole ground that the B1 mahasar was not proved by the opposite parties? 3) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.4.04 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.10//04? 5. Points 1 to 3:- There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No.1155. The respondent/complainant is running a small scale industrial unit and he has been paying the electricity charges under LT IV tariff. While so, the appellants/opposite parties issued A1 additional bill dated 31.12.03 for an amount of Rs.58465/- A1 additional bill was issued based on the surprise inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB. B1 is the mahasar prepared by the Asst. Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad. The case of the respondent/complainant is that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in issuing Ext.A1 additional bill for Rs.58465/-. 6. The Forum below accepted the case of the respondent/complainant on the sole ground that B1 mahasar was not proved by the opposite parties. It is to be noted that B1 mahasar was prepared by the Asst.Engineer, R.Bijuraj, Anti Power Theft Squad, Kottayam. A perusal of B1 mahasar would show that there was interchanging of the pressure coil provided for phases 1 and 3 of the power meter and thereby the power meter has been recording only 50% of the actual consumption of energy. It is true that the author of B1 mahasar, the Asst. Engineer, R.Bijuraj has not been examined before the Forum below. It is also true that the author of the B1 mahasar has not filed any affidavit in support of B1 mahasar. Thus, in effect B1 mahasar has not been properly proved by examining the author of the said mahasar. 7. The respondent/complainant has not disputed the inspection of his premises by the APTS. He also not disputed the preparation of B1 mahasar by the Asst.Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Kottayam. There is no whisper in the complaint or in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant regarding B1 mahasar. In effect preparation of B1 mahasar by the Asst. Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad has not been disputed or challenged by the respondent/complainant. Another important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the signature affixed by Jomy George an employee of the respondent/complainant. In B1 Mahasar it is specifically stated that the interchanging of the pressure coil for phases 1 and 3 has been noticed by the employee Jomy George and he was convinced about that interchanging of the pressure coil. It is also stated in B1 mahasar that Jomy George, Kizhakkekattu, was present at the premises of the complainant on the date of the inspection on 29.11.2003. A perusal of B1 mahasar would show that the aforesaid employee Jomy George accepted copy of the said mahasar on behalf of the complainant, the consumer. The fact that Jomy George was present at the time of the inspection and that copy of the mahasar was given to the said Jomy George and he was convinced about the said interchanging of pressure coil of the power meter are not disputed by the complainant/consumer. It is also to be noted that respondent/complainant has not denied the fact that Jomy George was an employee of the complainant/consumer. It is also not denied that he was present at the time of the inspection and he received copy of the mahasar. So, practically the respondent/complainant admitted the inspection of the premises by the Anti Power Theft Squad and preparation of B1 mahasar. The Forum below cannot be justified in totally ignoring B1 mahasar. It is also to be noted that B1 mahasar was prepared by the Asst. Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Kottayam and the inspection has not been dispute by the complainant/consumer. The signature of the representative of the complainant has not been denied or disputed. In such a situation and circumstance it was not fair on the part of the Forum below in ignoring B1 mahasar, on the sole ground that the author of the mahasar was not examined or that the scribe of the mahasar has not filed affidavit. 8. The B1 mahasar was prepared by the Asst, Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Kottayam. There is no case for the respondent/complainant (consumer) that the Asst. Engineer, R.Bijuraj of Anti Power Theft Squad, Kottayam was having any ill-feelings. or enemity towards the complainant/consumer. There is also no case for the complainant/ consumer that B1 mahasar was a concocted document. It is specifically stated in B1 mahasar that there was interchanging of the pressure coil of phases 1 and 3 of the power meter. The aforesaid finding made by the Asst. Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Kottayam is to bebelieved. There is no reasonable ground to doubt the finding made by the Asst. Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Kottayam regarding interchanging of the pressure coil of phases 1 and 3 of the power meter. It is to be noted that the 2nd opposite party, the Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Major Section, Thrikodithanam filed proof affidavit supporting the inspection made by the Anti Power Theft Squad and preparation B1 mahasar . He also averred about B3 letter issued by the Asst.Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Kottayam regarding the inspection of the premises of the consumer 1155 on 29.11.2003 and preparation of the mahasar noticing interchanging of the power coil of phases 1 and 3. As per B3 letter the Asst. Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad directed the 2nd opposite party to reassess the energy consumed by the consumer for a period of 6 months prior to the detection of the short assessment. It is categorically stated in B3 letter that only 50% of the consumption has been recorded by the power meter and to compensate the loss 50% of the energy for a period of 6 months. It is based on B1 to B3 documents, the A1 additional bill for Rs.58465/- was issued. The action of the opposite parties in issuing A1 additional bill cannot be treated as deficiency in service. The Forum below cannot be justified in holding that there was deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A1 additional bill. The aforesaid finding is liable to be quashed. 9. The respondent/complainant has got a case that the opposite parties have not followed the provision of clause 31(c) of the Conditions of supply of electrical Energy. It is to be noted that there was no fault in the energy meter; but the defect or irregularity was due to the interchanging of the pressure coil of phase 1 and 3 of the power meter at the terminal. It is also been reported that by the aforesaid interchanging of the pressure coil 50% of the actual consumption has been recorded by the power meter. It is only to compensate the aforesaid loss the A1 additional bill was issued for the other 50% of the consumption which was not recorded by the power meter. So, the short assessment could be detected very easily and the Asst. Engineer of Anti Power Theft Squad has correctly assessed the short assessment of the consumption. There was no necessity to adopt the procedures provided under clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical energy. 10.The opposite parties assessed the short assessment for a period of 6 months. Admittedly there is no acceptable data or material to treat the short assessment for a period of 6 months. It is to be noted that the meter reading was taken monthly by the Sub Engineer of the Electrical Majore Section, Thrikodithanam. But he failed to note the interchanging of the pressure coil of phases 1 and 3. Thus, the employee of the 1st opposite party, KSEB was at fault. There is no definite case for the appellants/opposite parties that the aforesaid interchanging of the pressure coil of phases 1 and 3 was there for a period of 6 months. The opposite parties cannot be justified in taking the short assessment for a period of 6 months. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case some leniency is to be taken in making the short assessment. This Commission is of the view that the short assessment can be made for a period of 3 months instead of 6 months. So, the additional bill amount would come to Rs.29232.50/-. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh additional bill for Rs.29232.50/- by way of short assessment bill. The respondent/complainant(consumer) is directed to pay the said sum of Rs.29232.50/- by way of additional bill for the interchange of the pressure coil of phases 1 and 3 of the power meter. The impugned order dated 30.4.04 passed by the Forum below canceling A1 additional bill is set aside. Thereby the respondent/complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.29232.50/- by way of short assessment for a period of 3 months. The appellant/opposite parties are at liberty to issue a fresh additional bill for the said amount of Rs.29232.50/-. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.4.04 passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.10/04 is set aside. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to issue fresh additional bill for Rs.29232.50/- in the place of A1 additional bills for Rs.58465/-. The respondent/complainant(consumer) is directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.29232.50/- by way of short assessment for a period of 3 months. The respondent/complainant is bound to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.29232.50/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment or on getting the fresh additional bill from the opposite parties. In the event of failure to pay the said amount respondent/complainant will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of this judgment. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER PS | 
