KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 736/2005

JUDGMENT DATED:  06-02-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU            :  PRESIDENT

APPELLANTS

1.      The Secretary,

KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.      The Executive Engineer,

          KSEB, Thiruvalla.

                    (Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

                    Vs

RESPONDENT

Ummar K.H.,

Kothachiraparayil,

Paippadu, Pallickachira P.O.,

Kottayam.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri. K. Satheesh Kumar & Sri. J.C. Stephenson)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in OP No. 448/02 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The appellants are under orders to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/-.  The bill issued for Rs. 16,158/- stands set aside.  The above amount is ordered to be refunded with interest at 24% and also to pay costs of Rs. 750/-.

          2.          The case of the complainant is that he is an electrician as well as the office bearer of powrasamithy at the locality.  As the powrasamithy used to question the illegal actions of the KSEB through various media, the staff of the KSEB was in inimical terms with him.  He was consuming only an average of 100 units of electricity bimonthly and was paying bills regularly.  As the petitioner found that the electric meter in his house is not working, on 05-05-2002 he reported the matter to the KSEB by recording the same in the complaint book.  On 04-07-2002 also meter reading was taken by the opposite party.  On 16-07-2002 a news item appeared in the Malayala Manorama Daily against the KSEB at the instance of the powrasamithy.  On the same day, in the after noon a group of people including the Assistant Engineer went to the house of the petitioner and threatened his wife and destroyed the seal of his electric meter and declared that the meter was tampered. No mahazar was prepared.  Assistant Engineer made the petitioner’s wife to sign on a paper under threat.  Subsequently, an invoice for Rs. 16,158/- was issued.  The connected load was calculated as 7 KW.  The meter was removed and the electric supply cut off.  The petitioner’s wife pledged ornaments and raised the amounts and paid and only thereafter the electric supply was reconnected.  Hence he has claimed the refund of the amount that was made to pay ie, Rs.16,158/- with interest and also compensation.

          3.          In the version filed the opposite parties/appellants have denied the entire allegations of the complainant.  It is alleged that the complainant was undertaking electrical wiring works unauthorizely without a valid wiring license.  It is denied that he recorded the complaint of nonworking of the meter in the complaint book.  It is pointed out that the complaint book was missing from the office thereafter.  The matter was reported to Sub Inspector of Police, Changanassery.  It is stated that as a part of routine work, the Assistant Engineer conducted the inspection of certain premises including the house of the complainant and found that the meter has been tampered.  A site mahazar was prepared which was signed by the wife of the complainant.  There was also unauthorized connected load.  The electric meter removed from the premises of the petitioner is being sent to the Electrical Inspectorate for testing.  On receipt of notice, the wife of the complainant remitted the amount on the same day.  The demand was made for misuse of electrical energy vide Clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.

          4.          The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts. A1 to A21 and B1 to B3.

          5.          The Forum on considering the evidence adduced have found that the complainant has nothing to do with the missing of the complaint book from the office of the opposite party.  The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the copy of the particular sheet of the complaint book produced and marked as Ext.A2 itself would show that it was the complainant who committed the theft of the complaint book.  The complainant has explained that he obtained the copy of the particular page through the Panchayath Ward Member one Mr. Ismail.  The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to show that the complaint filed by them in this regard before the police was acted upon.  The circumstances also would show that the complainant would not derive any benefit by committing theft of the complaint book.  On the other hand, the non-production of the complaint book would only help the case of the opposite party as according to them the meter was tampered by the complainant and the same was detected on 16-07-2002.  According to the complainant, he reported that the electric meter is faulty on 05-05-2002.  The complainant has also produced Ext.A12 the news item published in the newspaper, which would show that the powrasamithy was active.  It was also found that the electric meter seized from the house of the complainant was not sent for testing to the Electrical Inspectorate.  The opposite parties have no explanation in this regard.  It was also found that the seizing of the meter and the last meter reading at the time of seizure of the meter is not recorded in the mahazar.  It was suggested that the meter was not sent to the Electrical Inspectorate, as there was no tampering as such.

          6.          The version of PW1 is that he repaired electrical appliances and he used to attend a shop of his friend who runs a shop and that he used to bring the electrical appliances at his house and repair the same and that it was the above appliances that was noted in the mahzar to substantiate the case of excessive connected load.  The version of PW1 in this regard was found trustworthy

          7.          We find that the decision of the Forum is squarely based on appreciation of evidence that consisted of the testimony of the complainant and the concerned official and the documents.  No patent illegality as such in the appreciation of evidence has been brought out.  Hence we find that the findings of the Forum is not liable to be disturbed.  In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is confirmed.  All the same the direction to refund the amount of Rs. 16,158/- with interest at 24% is liable to be modified.  The direction to pay interest at 24% is set aside.  The appellants/opposite parties will be at liberty to adjust the bill amount and compensation and costs in future bills.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above.

                                             JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT