KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.386/09 JUDGMENT DATED 24.3.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER 1. Secretary, KSEB Vydhuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Assistant Engineer,KSEB -- APPELLANTS Electrical Section, Karimannoor, P.O.Idukki. 3. Sub Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Karimannoor P.O, Idukki. (By Adv.S.Balachandran) Vs. Wilson Abraham, Mazhuvannoor House, -- RESPONDENT Udumbannoor.P.O, Thodupuzha, Idukki Dist. (By Adv.Anitha Jacob & Ors.) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 27th November 2008 passed by CDRF, Idukki in CC No.70/08. The above complaint was preferred for getting P2 additional bill for Rs.41960/- cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the impugned P2 bill. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version and contended that on surprise inspection conducted by the anti power theft squad on 21.6.05 it was found that the one phase of the energy meter was not working and so for the escaped energy the impugned additional bill for Rs.41960/- was issued. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing P2 additional bill. 2. Before the forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and the third opposite party Sub Engineer of Karimannoor Electrical Section was examined as DW1. Exts. P1 to P7 series of documents were marked on the side of the complainant and R1 copy of the monthly consumption register marked on the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of evidence on record, the forum below passed the impugned order dated 27.11.08 directing the opposite parties to cancel the impugned bill for Rs.41960/-. Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties. 3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that there was unauthorized use of energy by the complainant and so the opposite parties are justified in issuing P2 additional bill for Rs.41960/-. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the forum below. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the appellants/opposite parties can be justified in issuing the P2 additional bill for Rs.41960/-? 2. Is there occurred deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P2 additional bill for Rs.41960/-? 3. Whether the forum below can be justified in cancelling the impugned bill for Rs.41960/-? 5. POINTS 1 TO 3:- There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is running a small scale industrial unit and he has been consuming electrical energy for running the industrial unit from the year 1991 onwards. The dispute is with respect to the issuance of P2 additional bill for Rs.41960/-. Admittedly, P2 additional bill was issued based on the surprise inspection conducted by anti power theft squad on 21.6.05. Ext.P1 is the site mahazer prepared by the third opposite party who accompanied the anti power theft squad on 21.6.05. On inspection, it was found that one phase of the energy meter was not recording the consumption. It is based on the fact that one phase was not recording, the impugned additional bill for Rs.41960/-was issued. Admittedly, the aforesaid additional bill was issued for escaped energy for a period of 6 months prior to 21.6.05. Admittedly, P2 additional bill was issued by invoking the provision of Sec. 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is as follows:- If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. 6. Thus, it can be seen that for invoking the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 there must be unauthorized use of energy by the consumer. But in this case there is no case for the opposite parties in their written version that the complainant/consumer consumed energy un authorisedly or that he had done anything to tamper the energy meter. DW1 is the author of P1 site mahazer. DW1 has no case that the complainant consumed energy un-authorisedly. There is no case for DW1 that the complainant/consumer has done anything un-authorisedly so as to prevent the recording of the consumption by the energy meter. It is to be noted that there is no whisper in the written version or in the oral evidence regarding un-authorized act on the part of the respondent/complainant (consumer). So, in such a situation it was not just or fair on the part of the opposite parties in invoking the provisions of Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. There can be no doubt that for invoking provisions of Section 126 or the other related provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 there must be unauthorized use of energy or unauthorized Act on the part of the consumer. In the present case on hand, there is nothing on record to infer that there was any sort of unauthorized Act on the part of the respondent/complainant (consumer). So, the forum below is perfectly justified in cancelling Ext.P2 additional bill for Rs.41960/-. 7. The complainant as PW1 has categorically deposed that he inspected the energy meter on 13.6.05 and there was no defective recording of the energy used. He categorically deposed that on 13.6.05 all the 3 phases of the energy meter were recording the consumption of energy. It is also deposed by DW1 that the non recording of one phase of the energy meter might have occurred between 13.6.05 and 21.6.05. There is no reason or ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. It is also to be noted at this juncture that DW1 has no case that the complainant tampered with the energy meter or he has done any sort of mal- practice or unauthorized act in preventing the energy meter recording the consumption. In such a situation, it can very safely be concluded that the opposite parties cannot be justified in issuing P2 additional bill for Rs.41960/- by treating the non recording of one phase of energy meter for a period of 6 months. So, the opposite parties had gone wrong in invoking the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thus, in all respects, the impugned P2 bill is liable to be quashed. The forum below has rightly set aside P2 additional bill for Rs.41960/-. 8. It is also to be noted that the Forum below has given liberty to the opposite parties to issue fresh bill to the complainant by taking the actual consumption of energy for the previous period if it is found that the meter was faulty. So, even if there occurred escaped billing of the energy consumed, the opposite party can issue bill for the said consumption based on the reading recorded by the energy meter. For the short period between 13.6.05 and 21.6.05, the opposite parties will be at liberty to issue additional bill by taking one half of the energy consumed during that period. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the forum below is confirmed to the extent as indicated above. As far as the present appeal is concerned, there will be no order as to costs M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER | 
