KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 214/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 18.01.2021

(Against the Order in C.C. 238/2011 of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. The Assistant Engineer, Kunnamkulam Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kunnamkulam P.O, Thrissur.

2. Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by the Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

                             (By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

RESPONDENT:

Devakey P.K., Ponnarassery House, P.O. Kanipayyur, Thrissur.

   (By Adv. Rajmohan C.S. & Martin Paul)

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

               Opposite parties in CC.No.238/2011 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, in short, the District forum has filed the appeal against an order passed by the District forum by which they were directed to return Rs. 40,000/- and                Rs. 59,528/- covered by Exts.A1 and A2 to the complainant, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

               2.  The averments contained in the complaint are, in brief, as follows. The case of the complainant is that the complainant got an electric connection vide consumer No.8008 of the opposite parties. She had paid regular bills without default. On 03.05.2011, the electric meter of complainant’s premises was destroyed due to lightening. So the complainant filed a request to the opposite parties for changing the destroyed meter. For changing the meter, the complainant had paid Rs. 972/- on 05.05.2011 as the price of new meter. Subsequently, on 06.05.2011, the Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the complainant’s premises and alleged that there was a strip found inside the electric meter. By alleging theft, they issued a bill for Rs. 40,000/- and subsequently they issued another bill for Rs. 59,528/-.The opposite parties had disconnected the power supply and for restoring the connection, they demanded to pay the bills. So she has paid the bill amount. These bills are illegal and by the issuance of the bills, the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

               3.  The opposite parties entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed version. In the version they stated that the disputed bill was issued as per the direction of the APTS officials on the basis of the detection of theft committed by the complainant. The amount was paid by the complainant and so the connection was restored. After the detection of theft, the opposite parties prepared a detailed mahasar in the presence of the son of the complainant and Village Officer of Kanipayur. During the inspection it was found that a plastic strip was used in order to stop the correct reading of the meter. Tampering of the meter and thereby reducing the recording of the true consumption, is an offence punishable under the Electricity Act. Thereafter a penal bill was issued to the complainant. Hence the issuance of bill was not a deficiency in service committed by opposite parties. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

               4.  The son of the comp