ORDER

Dated : 26 May 2010 Disposed Of KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 777/2003 ORDER DATED: 26-05-2010 PRESENT:

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER APPELLANT B,Mohammed Unni, Proprietor, Spark Rubber industries, Mongam, Malappuram Dist.

(Rep.by Adv.Sri.G.S.Kalkura)

Vs RESPONDENT The Assistant Electricity Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kondotty Major Section.

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

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the complainant and respondent was the opposite party in OP No. 142/2002 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in issuing short assessment bill dated 10-05-2002 for Rs. 27,089/- and also to get the impugned bill cancelled with compensation and costs. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. He contended that the impugned bill was issued based on the inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad on 07-05-2002 and that the bill was issued for the energy actually consumed by the opposite party. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP No. 142/2002.

2. Before the Forum below P1 and P2 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and R1 copy of the Meter Reading Register relating to Consumer No. 7217 was produced from the side of the opposite party. On the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence of the case, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 28^th August 2003 dismissing the complaint in OP No.

142/2002. Hence the present appeal by the complainant therein.

3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the impugned bill for Rs. 27,089/- was issued without any basis and that the opposite party has not even produced the so called mahazar prepared by Anti Power Theft Squad. It is further submitted that there was no such inspection as contended by the opposite party and that the appellant/complainant was not given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case and thereby requested for remanding the matter to the Forum below. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/opposite party supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He also relied on R1 Meter Reading Register and argued for the position that after rectification of the defect in the connection to the power meter, there was excess consumption of energy by the complainant and the actual consumption has been recorded by the energy meter. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

4. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant is a consumer of electrical energy with Consumer No. 7217. The complainant has been running the rubber industry within the limits of the electrical Major Section, Kondotty. It is the case of the opposite party that the impugned bill dated 10-05-2002 for Rs. 27,089/- was issued based on the inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad on 07-05-2003. But the opposite party has not produced the aforesaid mahazar prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad evidencing the surprise inspection on 07-05-2002. It is to be noted that the appellant/complainant (consumer) denied the case of the opposite party regarding the inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad on 07-05-2002. In such a situation, it was the duty of the opposite party to produce the mahazar prepared by Anti Power Theft Squad. The failure on the part of the opposite party in producing the aforesaid mahazar evidencing surprise inspection by Anti Power Theft Squad would create genuine doubt about the case of the opposite party. It is also to be noted that the person who prepared the mahazar on 07-05-2002 has also not be