KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.1272/2000
JUDGMENT DATED: 1.12.2007
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
1. The Secretary, K.S.E.B.,
Vaidhudhi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Asst. Executive Engineer, : APPELLANTS
Sakthikulangara, Kollam.
3. Asst. Engineer, Electrical Major Section,
Sakthikulangara, Kollam.
4. Sub Engineer, Electrical Major Section,
Sakthikulangara, Kollam.
(By Adv. S.Balachandran)
V.Geetha,
Padiyezha Madom, : RESPONDENT
Kannimelchery, Kavanad.P.O., Kollam.
(By Adv.K.B.Sreekumar)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
Appellants are the opposite parties in OP.79/2000 in the file of
CDRF, Kollam. The Forum quashed the penal bill dated 14.12.99 for a sum of Rs.6628/- and directed to refund the amount or adjust the amount in future bills.
2. It is the case of the complainant that on 14.12.99 at about 10Am, the opposite parties came to the premises of the complainant and disconnected electricity supply without notice. It is their case that when the complainant and her husband reached the house, the opposite parties left the place without giving any reasonable explanation. When the complainant approached electricity office concerned, the staff directed the complainant’s husband to approach 2nd opposite party ie Asst.Executive Engineer of the APTS and as directed by him he remitted the amount of that penal bill. When the copy of the mahazar and report was sought to they were reluctant. As the complainant wanted immediate restoration of supply she paid the said amount. It is only after remitting the amount the copy of the mahazar and inspection report was given to the complainant. It is further alleged that a false case of theft of energy has been made on account of the personal animosity of the 2nd opposite party who is a neighbour.
3. The opposite parties have filed statement mentioning that on 14.12.99 the Asst. Executive Engineer, Sub Engineer and other technical staff of the Major section, Sakthikulkangara inspected the premises of the consumer and found that the consumer was illegally abstracting electrical energy by cutting and peeling the phase and neutral of the service wire and has connected the outgoing phase wire in such a way that the meter was bypassed. It is also mentioned that the husband of the complainant ie. K.P.Ullas who was examined as PW1 was present at the premises. It is also mentioned that complainant refused to sign the mahazar. It is submitted that on the same day the husband of the complainant came to the office of the 2nd opposite party and filed an application for restoring the supply. It is also submitted that copy of the mahazar was given to the complainant on proper acknowledgment. It is further stated that the penal bill was calculated as per law.
The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, husband of the complainant; exts. P1 to P13 and the testimony of DW1, Reghukumaran the then Asst.Executive Engineer and exts. D1 to D4.
The Forum below allowed the petition on the ground that there was no independent witness to the mahazar. It is also noted that mahazar is in a printed proforma. The lower Forum has also quoted the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 349 that:
“ Before raising a presumption under Section 39 of the Electricity Act that there is dishonest abstraction of energy, the presence of a perfected artificial means which will render abstraction of energy possible has to be established by the prosecution. It is further necessary to show that there was a dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of electrical energy by the accused person. It is not sufficient to say that a meter has been tampered with and that it is under the control of the accused person - Mere allegation about tampering of meter is not sufficient.
On a perusal of the evidence adduced in the matter we find that the finding of the Forum below is not based on sound reasons. It is seen that it is noted in ext.B1 mahazar that petitioner refused to sign in the mahazar. DW1 the then Asst.Executive Engineer has testified in the proof of the mahazar. Just absence of the independent witness cannot be the reason to discard the mahazar. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of DW1 for discredit his version. We find that the allegation mentioned in the pleadings ie; personal enemity on the part of the 2nd opposite party ie DW1 is not repeated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. No complaint has been filed before the official superiors of DW1. The version of the
