IMPORTANT POINT
Police complaint is necessary in cases of power theft.

S. Chandra Mohan Nair, Member—The order dated 31, 2009 in CC 9/08 of CDR Wayanad is being assailed in this appeal by the complainant who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below:

2. For a fair disposal of the appeal the brief facts of the case are recapitulated as here under: That the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having electric connection to his residence vide consumer No.3134 and also having another connection to his 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the same building with consumer No.7509 and that he was regularly paying electricity charges. It is his case that on 25.10.03 when the complainant and his family members were not in the house there was a surprise inspection by the 1st opposite party in the building and two demand cum-disconnection notices were issued to him for a sum of Rs.68,540 and Rs.7,200 respectively on the allegation that the complainant was misusing energy from Consumer No. 3134. It is also the case of the complainant that though he had given a written complaint to the Deputy Chief Engineer Anti Power Theft Squad stating that he has not committed any misuse of energy, not only that the complaint was dismissed but he was also directed to pay the amount failing which the supply was to be disconnected. Submitting that the demand cum-disconnection notices were illegal and unsustainable, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bill and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000.

3. Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties filed version wherein it was stated that on 25.10.03 there was a surprise inspection by the APTS of the opposite parties and that unauthorised additional load, misuse of energy and temporary extension from consumer No. 3134 were found out and it was consequent to the said inspection that the bills were issued which were liable to be paid by the complainant. It was also submitted that by the time the complaint was filed the amount had gone up to Rs.1,57,500 including interest.

4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. The Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer of the opposite parties were examined as OPW l and OPW2 and Exs. B1 to B10 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. The Forum below had appointed an Advocate Commissioner and an expert for verifying the electrical installation of the complainant and the reports were marked as Ex.C1 and C2. On a verification of the case bundle it is found that the complaint is filed as back in 2003 and the same is numbered as 240/03. On a perusal of the order sheet it is found that on 7.12.07 the complaint was dismissed and on filing an IA 37/08 the complaint was restored to file and renumbered as CC.No.9/08.

5. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had not considered the real facts and circumstance of the case in its correct perspective. It is his very case that the Forum below had passed the order without appreciation of the evidence tendered by the complainant and also that the Forum below had ignored the Commission reports marked as C1 and C2. He advanced the contention that reports of the main expert and advocate commissioner would clearly establish the fact that the electrical supply passed to the circuit even when the switch was in off position and the consumption of the domestic and commercial connection was properly and correctly recorded in the meters provided in the premises of the complainant. It is also his case that the opposite parties had not filed any objection to the commission report and that the Forum below had not considered the inspection made by the 2nd opposite party as per Ex. A5. It is the further case of the learned counsel that there was no misuse of energy or unauthorized extension committed by the complainant and the Forum below had gone wrong in dismissing the c