KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Mathew Syriac

THE Kerala State Electricity Board and another (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners) have come in revision against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) which has confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the Petitioners appeal against the District Forums order dated 17.01.2005 in favour of Mathew Syriac, original complainant before the District Forum and Respondent in this case.

THE Petitioners case briefly stated is that on 09.08.2001, the Assistant Engineer of the Petitioners Board found that the Respondent who owns a jewellery shop, was using a connected load of 5166 W against the sanctioned load of 2 KWs. A Site Mahazar was prepared and Respondent signed it. THE use of the connected load being more than the sanctioned one is a violation of Section 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, hence a penal bill for Rs.23,559/- was sent to the Respondent for payment. The Respondent who was original complainant before the District Forum denied the above contentions and stated that he was only using the authorized connected load and aggrieved by being sent an inflated bill by the Petitioners on grounds of theft of electricity, he filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing both parties accepted the complaint. The relevant part of the order of the District Forum is reproduced:

Even though, the opposite parties have a case that there was unauthorized connected load of 3166 W, no evidence has been adduced to prove the authorized load in the premises. Opposite parties rely on Ext.B4 in which it is written connected load 2 KW. But this is not sufficient. In order to prove their case, opposite parties have to prove the authorized connected load in the premises and also the present connected load in the mahazar. It is only stated 22 bulbs. The voltages of the bulbs found by the Sub Engineer are not mentioned in the mahazar or in the affidavit. The basic record to prove the authorized connected load is the completion report filed by the electric wiring contractor before the concerned authorities and also subsequent report if any. But that have not been produced by the opposite parties. It is not safe to rely on the meter reading register and the bills to come to the conclusion about the authorized connected load.

THE District Forum also observed that according to a News item published in the Kerala Kaumudi dated 12.09.2001, a press release of the Petitioner Board was referred to, which invited the consumers to intimate their connected load by 21.10.2001 so that the Petitioner Board could regularize or refix the connected load. THE Assistant Engineer of the Petitioner has denied having received any such instructions from the Petitioner Board. District Forum has, therefore, drawn a presumption that the News item was correct and the instructions were not produced before it as it would have weakened the case of the Petitioners. THE Petitioners, however, did not say that the News item was wrong or that they had not issued any such press note. In short, even if there was any excess connected load the same would have been regularized rather than penalized if it was detected before 21st October, 2001. The State Commission before whom the Petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the District Forum rejected the appeal. The operative part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows: The Forum has noted that except in Ext.B4 copy of the meter reading register wherein the connected load is mentioned as 2 KW no evidence has been produced to establish that the original connected load was only 2 KW. It is also noted that in the mahazar, it is only noted that there are 22 bulbs. It is pointed out that the record to prove the authorized connected load is the completion report filed by the electrical wiring contractor. It was found that there is no reliable evidence produced regarding the authorized connected load. We find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum. The opposite party has not produced the relevant records established as to when the connection was given and what was the connected load except the noting in the meter reading register which can be done at any time. The same cannot be treated as evidence to establish that the sanctioned connected load was 2 KW. We find no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum. In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for both parties were present and were heard at length. They essentially reiterated the respective positions that had been taken before the Fora below.

THE averments made by the learned counsel for both parties have been considered the evidence on record have been gone through carefully. I agree with the order of the Fora below that no credible evidence had been produced by the Petitioners that the authorized connected load of the Respondent was 2 KW though onus to do so was on the Petitioners which they have failed to prove before the Fora below as already stated in the impugned orders. On the other hand, the District Forum which is the first court of facts has on the basis of actual evidence produced before it reached its conclusion which was subsequently upheld by the State Commission, and the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. THEre is, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Fora below. THE revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.