T.N.SUKUMARAN vs KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE complainant in G.P. 585/97 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur is the appellant. Complainant alleged before the District Forum that on the allegation that he has made illegal abstraction of electrical energy, opposite party disconnected supply of Consumer Nos. 2219 and 2705; the first being agricultural connection and the other being a connection for domestic purpose. Two bills were issued; an amount of Rs. 867/- for Consumer No. 2219 and Rs. 17,820/- for Consumer No. 2705. THEse two bills were issued under Clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. THE electric supply was also disconnected without notice. He challenged the disconnection and wanted compensation on the ground that allegation of illegal use of the energy is not true or correct. In the version filed by the opposite party it was contended, the complainant had two electric connections Consumer Nos. 2705 and 5654 for domestic purpose and agricultural purposes. He has two electric connections Consumer Nos. 2219 and 2214. When the Anti Power THEft Squad visited the premises of the complainant on 19.6.1997 they discovered HP motors were fitted with Consumer No. 5664 and also to noted to his having drawn the electric connection from the neighbours. R. Chandramohan''s meter unauthorisedly and in a dangerous manner. Site mehazar was prepared which the complainant refused to attest and disconnection was made because as the installations of the consumer were likely to cause danger to life and loss of property. THEy wanted to support their action, consequently wanted dismissal of the complaint. Complainant produced Exts. Al to A7 and opposite party produced Exts. Bl to B16 of which Exts. Bl to B3 are site mehazars prepared by the opposite party on 19.6.1997. On a consideration of the said material District Forum dismissed the complaint. As clearly noted, the said dismissal is challenged by the complainant in this appeal.

IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the District Forum failed to note, though the complainant questioned the preparation of the mehazar and also challenged the disconnection of the supply without notice, the District Forum did not note that the disputed mehazar is not properly proved. IT was urged by the learned Counsel, that the whole defence of the opposite party rested on the allegation, the installations of the complaint are likely to cause damage to life and property which they sought to prove by production of Exts. Bl to B3. Unless the said mehazars are prepared at the spot as is required by law and proved, disconnection without notice to the complainant itself would constitute deficiency of service. On the other hand learned Counsel for the opposite party supported the order of the District Forum maintaining, that there is no effective challenge against the steps taken by the opposite party in disconnecting the service and when such is the position it was not necessary for the opposite party to establish by independence evidence that Exts. B1 to B3 were prepared as is required by law. In this connection learned Counsel also pointed out that inasmuch as Exts. B1 to B3 having been marked and the complainant did not enter the box to swear his case, the appellant/ complainant cannot now maintain, that the ground on which the disconnection was made is not established. The learned Counsel also pointed out, that there is no specific prayer in the complaint for quashing the disputed bill. That also is a factor which according to the learned Counsel, has to be taken into account in examining the acceptability of the argument by the learned Counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute that these disputed bills were issued under Clause 42(d) of the Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy; and if as a matter of fact condition existed justifying the issue of the bills under Clause 42(d) then if the condition thereof is proved when there is misuse of energy within the meaning of Clause 42(d), the consumer can be charged with three times the tariff. The allegation as noticed was complainant got connection for extended from his neighbours, consumer and the same could cause danger to human life and loss of property. Complaint alleges without sustainable reason disconnection was made without notice.

A strict construction of the pleading as is done in civil cases is not called for in a proceeding before the FORA under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, if the statement in the complaint would bring out deficiency of service. A reading of the allegation in the complaint would show, that complainant does not admit as to validity of the act and the steps taken by the opposite parties in disconnecting the service. After he says that the opposite parties disconnected the service on the allegation that he has committed illegality with the supply.

A two-fold attack is made against disconnection one is that alleging that he has not made illegal interference with the connection, and the other is that the disconnection was made without notice to him. The implication of those allegation now has to be understood with due regard to the scope Clause 42(d) Clause 44(b) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The demand for consumption energy if not paid within the stipulated time the service can be disconnected under Section 234 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Clause 32(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity; this step can be taken only after issuing several days notice. But when conditions under Clause 44(b) of the Condition of Supply of Energy exist, disconnection of the service can be made without notice. Penal charge can be demanded and recovered as per the Clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The case of the opposite party is they disconnected the supply, issued the disputed bills because when the Anti Theft Squad inspected the premises of the complainant they discovered HP motors fitted with Consumer No. 5664 and noted, complainant has taken connection from neighbour''s meter in such a manner to cause danger to life; they prepared Exts. B1 to B3 mehazar. What is important to be noted is, the action taken by the opposite parties could be justified only if Exts. B1 to B3 mehazar are proved. As already noted, the allegations in the complaint will not permit an inference that the complainant admitted he has committed illegal interference with the supply; on the other hand the allegation would imply challenge against the steps taken by the opposite parties. Of course it was desirable and necessary in such circumstance the complainant should have sworn to his case, but that will not absolve the opposite party from establishing that Exts. B1 to B3 were prepared as is required by law. This is more so as the steps that should follow was recovery of penal charges. When such is the position, the law will insist proof of illegal interference with supply as is envisaged under Clauses 42(d) and 44(b).

BUT not even affidavits were filed in support of the action taken by the opposite party. The burden of proof is on them to prove the steps taken by them are legal. The complainant also did not file any affidavit. With due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we do not consider that we should forthwith pronounce that Exts. B1 to B3 are not properly proved and the action taken by the opposite party on the basis of the same is invalid. We consider that in the given circumstance the parties have to be given a further opportunity to prove their respective cases. In that view the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the District Forum for fresh disposal. In the result the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside the matter is remitted to the District Forum which shall restore the complaint to file and give opportunity to both the parties to prove their respective cases and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 3.1.2000. Appeal allowed.