State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K. Nandakumar, S/O A. Parameswaran ... vs Kerala State Electricity Board, on 8 April, 2011
Daily Order
First Appeal No. A/10/610 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/10/2010 in Case No. CC/03/1057 of District Trissur) K.NANADAKUMAR Vs. KSEB&OTHERS BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT PRESENT: Dated : 08 Apr 2011 ORDER Disposed as Allowed
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
APPEAL Nos. 610/2010 & 637/2010
JUDGMENT DATED: 08-04-2011
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPEAL No. 610/2010
APPELLANT K. Nandakumar, S/o A. Parameswaran Nair, Kaipilli House, Ayyappankavu P.O., Thrissur.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. R.S. Kalkura & others) Vs RESPONDENTS
1. Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Major Section, Nadathara P.O., Thrissur.
3. Anti Power Theft Squad, Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair) APPEAL No. 637/2010 APPELLANT K. Nandakumar, S/o A. Parameswaran Nair, Kaipilli House, Ayyappankavu P.O., Thrissur.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. R.S. Kalkura & others) Vs RESPONDENTS
1. Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Major Section, Nadathara P.O., Thrissur.
3. Anti Power Theft Squad, Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair) COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER These appeals are preferred against the common order dated 30-08-2010 of CDRF, Thrissur in Ops 1057/03 and 1093/2003 wherein and whereby the Forum below dismissed OP 1093/2003 and allowed the prayer for reconnection of electricity in OP No. 1057/2003 on condition that the complainant pays the bill amount covered under Ext.P1 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
2. In OP No. 1057/2003, the complainant's case is that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and that on 15-12-2003, the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant and disconnected the power supply without notice. It is also his case that the opposite parties dismantled the meter and the same was taken away by them. Alleging deficiency ins service in the disconnection and dismantling without notice, the complaint was filed for restoration of power supply.
3. In OP No. 1093/2003 the complainant raised some more allegations against the opposite parties by stating that he was served with a penal bill for Rs. 8,12,630/- and that the bill was issued consequent to the direction to restore the supply as per orders in IA 859/03. Disputing the veracity of the bill, the complainant submitted that bill was illegal and unsustainable.
4. In both cases the opposite parties filed version contending that it was consequent to an inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) on 15-12-2003 wherein it was found that 93 mm cables for about 20 meters which were long enough to be connected to the 100 KW transformer was drawn without the electricity meter. Unauthorized consumption of electricity was found out and hence the supply was disconnected and the meter was dismantled by the opposite parties. It was also their case that the penal bill was liable to be paid by the complainant.
5. The evidence consisted of the deposition of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 on the side of the complainant. The opposite parties filed 5 documents which were marked as Exts. R1 to R5.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant in both appeals had filed petition to accept some additional documents for the proper disposal of this complaint. He has produced the electricity bills from 08/03 to 12/03 and the bills from 01/04 to 06/04 which are the bills prior to the disconnection and after the reconnection consequent to the direction of the Forum below for reconnection.
7. The learned Counsel has also submitted before us that Ext.R1 is stated to be the subject matter for the opposite parties for issuing a huge bill like the one marked as Ext.P1. It is his case that the complainant has not done anything as shown in the site mahazar prepared and produced by the opposite party. The learned Counsel invited our attention to Ext.R1 and submitted before us that it was only stated that there were some cables which could be used to take connection from 100 KVA transformer without being transmitted through the electricity meter. He has also advanced the contention that the opposite parties have not examined any independent witness to support their case of unauthorized extension of electricity and that the opposite parties had not filed even a police complaint. It is also his case that the opposite parties have failed to comply with Section 126 of the Electricity Act and that the opposite parties have wreaked vengeance against the complainant for filing complaint before the vigilance and other authorities for getting the reconnection.
8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the allegations of the complainant was false and vexatious. He has submitted that the inspection was done by the APTS of the opposite party and that a site mahazar was prepared at the site. He has also submitted that the Forum below has appreciated the entire facts in its correct perspective and it is evident that the complainant/appellant had conducted unauthorized use of electrical energy as is seen from Ext.R1. Supporting the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum he argued for the dismissal of the appeals also.
9. On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant in both appeals and also the Counsel for the respondents, we find that it is the case of the appellant/complainant that he had never committed unauthorized use of electrical energy as argued by the opposite parties. It is found that the complainant has strongly disputed the allegations of the opposite parties especially the preparation of the site mahzar and the issuance of the bill. On a perusal of the Ext.R1 we find that the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) has stated that '=Ha8W8 Ha9T=<fU[D =T<O =CU\FT;U/b8UO <UkW^} =T<DUO ....... change over switch- O <UkW^ ........ %\oF^ 20 AVpM %=\BT,U/ba `=Ha8W8 Ha9T=<fU<TBU Ha9T=U/bUeWJJ 100 KV Transformer - O <UkW^ *7*aGN "3WdTN =T*fUO -3UgU/bUCUdWk8TBU *T7[geW& '=Ha8W8 \*?UPEKU Ha9T=<fU\Dda AVpLUDX[3 !DcTf [[E:_W8U?<a;^ Ha9T=UdTEWk8T7a& '3TNHa\>TMALU[NL >_XHa =CU\FT;U/b8UO<UkW^ ......... terminal $J*UB <UDBUO *T7[geW& Energy Theft <3fUB8TBU $8UO<UkW^ E_*a8ATBU&
10. On a careful reading of the above statement we find that it is only stated that the wires were fixed in such a way that they could be used for taking electricity without being recorded through the electricity meter. However it is also found that the opposite parties have not cared to adduce evidence in support of their site mahzar. WE are of the opinion that the preparation of a site mahazar will not ipso facto prove the case of the opposite parties that the consumer/complainant had committed unauthorized use of energy. When the complainant had strongly disputed the site mahzar it was the burden duty of the opposite party to adduce evidence in support of their contention that there was unauthorized use of energy without being recorded in the meter. The complainant has also gone into the box and was subjected to cross examination. It is found that the opposite parties have not elucidated anything to contradict the statements of the complainant. It is also found that if there were any wires or other apparatus in the premises which were illegal, the opposite parties could have very well taken them in their custody. They could have al least examined the scribe of the mahazar or a witness who had signed in the mahazar. In the absence of the above, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had tried to commit unauthorized use of energy as contended by the opposite parties. The bills produced by the appellant in the appeal stage also lead us to the conclusion that the consumption before and after the disconnection tally with the consumption pattern. In fact the consumption after reconnection consequent to the direction of the Forum below is on a lower side. But the consumption before disconnection is also not on a very higher side. Even if it is presumed that the complaint was trying to reduce the consumption, it is seen that a reasonable consumption was there before and after the alleged inspection of the APTS of the opposite parties. We find that the allegation of unauthorized use and the consequent issuance of the disputed bill are unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In the result, the appeals are allowed. The common order dated 30-08-2010 in OP No. 1057/2003 and is set aside. The bill for Rs. 8,12,630/- is cancelled. As reconnection was given as per the orders in IA No. 859/2003 we find that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. However the complainant is entitled to costs of Rs. 3,000/- for the proceedings through out in both cases.
The office is directed to send back the LCR to the forum below along with a copy of this order urgently.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT