SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SECRETARY KSEB – Appellant
Versus
K K BABU – Respondent
SC/32/A/292/2016



Petitioner Advocates:B SAKTHIDARAN NAIR ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/292/2016 SECRETARY, KSEB PRESENT ADDRESS - PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus K K BABU PRESENT ADDRESS - K K BHAVAN CHAVARKODE CHERY AYIROOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA.

R S SUNIL SUB ENGINEER PRESENT ADDRESS - KSEB SECTION OFFICE KEDAKULAM ELAKAMON PO AYIROOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA.

JOSEPH SHAJI PRESENT ADDRESS - A Ex E APTS KSEB NEAR S M P PALACE CHINNAKKADA KOLLAM,KERALA.

A AJILAL PRESENT ADDRESS - AE APTS KSEB NEAR S M P PALACE CHINNAKKADA KOLLAM,KERALA.

Asst.ENGINEER PRESENT ADDRESS - KSEB SECTION PARIPPALLY PO KOLLAM,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 07/10/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.292/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 07.10.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.168/2007on the files of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram (by Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh and Adv. Sheeba Sivadasan)

Vs RESPONDENTS:

1. K.K. Babu, K.K. Bhavan, Chavarkode Chery, Ayiroor Village, Thiruvananthapuram

2. R.S. Sunil, Sub Engineer, KSEB Section Office, Kedakulam, Elakamon P.O., Ayiroor, Thiruvananthapuram

3. Joseph Shaji, Assistant Executive Engineer, APTS, KSEB, Near S.M.P.

Palace, Chinnakkada, Kollam

4. A. Ajilal, Assistant Engineer, APTS, KSEB, Near S.M.P. Palace, Chinnakkada, Kollam Assistant Engineer, KSEB Section, Parippally P.O., Kollam.

5.

(by Adv. C.S. Rajmohan and Adv. P. Priya Pillai)

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS:

6. Baby, W/o K.K. Babu, Pooja, Paripally P.O., Kollam

7. Aji, S/o K.K. Babu, Pooja, Paripally P.O., Kollam

8. Joy S., S/o K.K. Babu, Pooja, Paripally P.O., Kollam

9. Biju, S/o K.K. Babu, Pooja, Paripally P.O., Kollam (by Adv. P. Santhosh Kumar and Adv. D. Supriya)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR :PRESIDENT th The appellant is the 5 opposite party in C.C.No.168/2007 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant was a subscriber of an electric connection provided by the opposite parties. On 05.07.2007 at about 2p.m., the opposite parties 1 to 3 entered into the premises of the complainant and disconnected his electric connection and dismantled the meter. The opposite parties stated that they were going to change the old meter with a new meter. The opposite parties 1 to 3 also asked the son of the complainant to sign a paper and accordingly, he signed it without reading. The opposite parties 1 to 3 were members of the Theft Squad of KSEB, Kollam unit and they had no jurisdiction to conduct inspection at the residence of the complainant in Thiruvananthapuram district. The opposite parties 1 to 3 trespassed into the residence of the complainant on 05.07.2007, without any reason and hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs. In the said circumstances, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed a joint version contending that the Electricity Theft Squad inspected the premises of the complainant on 05.07.2007 at about 2p.m. and found that the complainant had committed theft of electricity by tampering the meter. A mahazar was also prepared then and there. Thereafter, a bill was issued to the complainant for Rs.1,36,047/- on 06.07.2007. The present complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission as the matter relates to theft of electricity.

4. Before the District Commission, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined and Exhibits D1 and D2 were mark

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top