ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K S E B, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM AND ORS Vs. T C MATHEW THAZHAPPALLIL, MALLOOSSERY P O, KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 4.11.2005 of CDRF, Kottayam in OP 178/04 is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite parties on the short ground that the order of the Forum below in directing the opposite parties to cancel Ext.A1 bill and to issue a new revised bill complying with the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and to pay cost of Rs.750/ - to the complainant is perse illegal and unsustainable. The opposite parties have also challenged the forum's jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and that he has been running the SSI unit for earning his livelihood and that on 15.6.04 the APTS of the opposite parties has inspected his factory and issued a bill for Rs.5,96,010/ - to be paid on or before 10.9.04. It is alleged that the electricity connection was also disconnected on the date of inspection itself. The complainant submitted before the Forum below that the actions of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and prayed that the opposite parties are to be directed to cancel the bill and to give free connection to the factory along with costs.

(3.) ON notice from the Forum, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the petitioner is having a connection under commercial tariff and that on 15.6.04 the APTS of the opposite party had conducted a surprise inspection where pilferage of energy by inserting a 10cm long plastic film to arrest the rotation of the disc and to stop partly the recording of the energy was detected. It was also found that the rubber beeding of the power meter was cut and removed for the length of 5cms. The opposite parties further submitted that the site mahasar was prepared where the petitioner had affixed his signature and that the bill was issued under clause 43 of the Condition of Supply of electrical energy. The opposite parties further contended that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant was liable to pay the amount assessed by the inspection wing of the opposite parties.