Full Judgment
SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in the file of OP.500/02 dated.19th January 2005. The opposite parties are the appellants who prefers this appeal from the finding of the Forum below. The Forum below ordered that to set aside Ext.A2 bill for Rs.29017/- and subsequent bill dated.5.12.02 for Rs.2684/- and the opposite party is also directed to issue fresh bill under one year tariff which the petition is liable to pay. It is the order that the petitioner is liable to pay current charges under tariff one and only the opposite parties are also directed to pay cost or Rs.500/- which can be adjusted in the future bill or pay by directing. The brief of the case is that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties, having domestic connection with Con.NO.5993 under tariff 1A and commercial connection with NO.7676 under tariff 7A in the same bill. The residential construction portion of the building is having Panchayath No.175/III and commercial portion of the building 176/III of Vijayapuram Panhayath. On 30.10.02 some officers from the opposite party alleged to be members of the Anti Power Theft Squad went to the petitions premises and inspected all connections in the house and the rooms rented out to others for commercial purpose and satisfied that there was nothing wrong in his premises. He has put up a change over switch in his house for installing an inverter. But the surprise of the petitioner, officers of the opposite parties alleged that the change over switch was fitted against the Rules of Electricity Board and they were not satisfied with the reason given by the petitioner that it was for connecting an inverter and subsequently a penal bill for Rs.29017/- was issued on 21.11.02 calculating the electricity charges as per commercial tariff. The act of the opposite parties is arbitrary and without any basis. The complainant has an allegation about non-giving of connection under OYEC scheme within the time prescribed by the officers of the opposite parties. They were not given connection in time, it also alleged that he had threatened to complaint to the Vigilance Department only then they give said connection. The complainant feels that issue of the penal bill is for effect of his petition. According to the complainant he had never taken electricity from the commercial building to his residential building, as it is far in excess of the domestic tariff. First opposite party has also changed his domestic connection 5993 to VII A tariff from December 2002 and started to issue bill under the said tariff. The act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service. Hence the complaint filed with a prior to cancel the bill of Rs.29017/- to set aside the bill dated.5.12.02 in respect of Con.No.59/93 for Rs.2684/- to direct the opposite parties to collect the electricity charges or house connection of the petitioner with consumer No.5993 as per tariff and also for compensation and costs.
The first opposite party appeared in person and filed a detailed version in the Forum below. They contended that the Special inspection team, Electrical circle, Kottayam conducted a surprise inspection in the premises of the complainant on 30.10.02 and detected that using a change over switch, the consumer was abstracting energy from the domestic connection for the use of his commercial connection and had unauthorisedly extented to 240 W for his domestic connection for a nearby temporary shed. The Sub Engineer, Varghese Abrahan, who accompanied the Special Inspection team prepared a site mahazar in the presence of George Joseph son of the petitioner. The said George Joseph signed in the mahazar. It was convinced that the petitioner had misused the energy supplied for a specific purpose under a particular tariff without the knowledge. Apart from unauthorized taking connection of 240 W from the domestic connection to the temporary shed, as per clause 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, such an act of misused electrical energy. As the change over switch was connected with the intention to use energy for commercial purpose, by illegally abstracting energy for commercial purpose, by illegally abstracting energy from the domestic connection, to compensate the loss sustained by the Board a penal bill was issued and tariff of Consumer No.5993was changed to LT VIII A. The claim of the petition is regarding non-installation of OYEC connection is not at all correct. The connection was given to him as per priority basis. Hence the opposite parties have prayed to dismiss the petition. Both the complainant and opposite party is adduced evidence as affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A5 and Ext.B1 and B2. Commission report also marked as Ext.C1.
DW1 examined as a witness before the Forum below. The expert Commission was appointed. His report was marked as Ext.C1. The Forum below found that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service in this case. This appeal prefers from that finding for the Forum below. It is seen in the evidence that an Electrical Inspector, Kottayam was appointed as an expert Commissioner by the Forum below to find out where there was any chance for taking electricity from the change over switch fitted in Consumer NO.5993 to Con.No.7676. In this point she reported the Commissioner report and marked it as Ext.C1. In the report (Ext.C1) the expert Commissioner has stated that she visited the site on 7.2.03 and checked the installation in the presence of the petitioner and Sub Engineer of Manarcaud Electrical Section and ascertain that there was no possibility for taking electricity from Con.No.5993 from the 3 phase reversing switch termed as change over switch in the petition to another load or Con.No.7676 without re-arranging connections from the reversing switch and the wiring installation. The appellant filed in objection in the Forum Below has stated that the Commissioner visited the side only on 7.2.03 ie., after regularization of unauthorized and developed the change over switch which was already found renewed on 24.12.02. When the Commissioner visited the premises on the basis of the request of the complainant or the regulation of un authorized extension and change of tariff. But it is to be noted that DW1 has no case that he has checked whether there was electricity in the change over switch.
The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the Commission report cannot be accept blindly to dis-believe the case of the appellants. The Commissioner is not an expert deputed either by the complainant or by the opposite parties. The expert Commission is the Electrical Inspector a competent person to inspect and report regarding this matter, he was appointed by the Forum below.
In the circumstances, this Commission not seen any reason to dis-believe the report of Ext.C1 filed by the expert Commissioner in the above case.
In the result, we are not seen any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. The appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. The points of the appeal are answered accordingly.