STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/20/2022 P CHANDRAN PRESENT ADDRESS - TC 38/423 ARATHI BHAVAN THYCAUD VILLAGE CHENTHITTA CHALAI P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695036 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SECRETARY KSEB PRESENT ADDRESS - VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN ,KERALA. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION FORT PRESENT ADDRESS - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695023 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 03/07/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 20/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03.07.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 94/2009 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

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

P. Chandran, S/o late Ponnu Reddiar, T.C. 38/423, Arathi Bhavan, Thycaud Village, Chenthitta, Chalai P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 036.

(By Adv. T.L. Sreeram)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

(By Adv. Aniyoor K. Venugopalan Nair and Adv. N.G. Mahesh)

2. Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023. 3. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 94/2009 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, “the District Commission”).

2. The complainant contended that the opposite parties disconnected his electrical connection which was given by the opposite parties for conducting a business. The complainant received notice dated 25.03.2009 demanding payment of Rs. 14,256/-. The complainant closed the business premises seven months ago due to his illness. It was stated in the demand notice that if the amount was not remitted before 13.04.2009, the connection would be disconnected and the meter would be taken over by the third opposite party. It was further informed that revenue recovery proceedings would be initiated against the complainant for the recovery of the amount due from the complainant.

3. The opposite parties filed a joint version. It was contended that against the bill, the complainant had statutory remedy before the appellate authority as contemplated under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. There is statutory bar of jurisdiction under section 145 of the Electricity Act in entertaining this matter. The complainant defaulted electricity charges from July 2005 onwards. The complainant defaulted the first bill amount of Rs. 6,319/- dated 26.07.2008. Since the bill amount was not paid, disconnection was effected on 23.10.2008. On 26.05.2009, when the Sub Engineer of the Fort Section inspected the premises of the complainant, it was found that the terminal seal of the meter was tampered. The phase wires were removed. The terminal insulation wire was removed and wrongly connected to the outgoing terminal and thereby committed theft of electricity by the complainant. A criminal case was also registered against the complainant before the Thampanoor police station under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

4. The District Commission dismissed the complaint on the reason that the complainant did not file affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.

5. Heard. Perused the records.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since there was theft of electricity, the consumer commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It appears from the mahazar produced by the opposite parties along with the proof affidavit that there was clear manipulation of the meter and consequent theft of electricity.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others Vs.

Anis Ahmad reported in 2013 KHC 4477: AIR 2013 SC 2766 held that a “complai