AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Exts. P1 and P2 bills demanding a sum of Rs. 32,721/- and Rs. 20,956/- respectively. The motive behind the bill is an inspection held by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) of the K.S.E.B. on 10-3-2003 in the petitioner''s premises. The APTS found in the ice plant of the petitioner that in one of the two motors installed in the plaint, the capacitor was not working. That is the provocation for issuing Ext. P2 bill by adding 20% more to make good for the alleged loss of electricity inconsequence of the non-functioning of the capacitor and Ext. P1 bill claiming fixed charges and the current charges estimated on the above basis for the previous five months as well.
The learned standing counsel for the KSEB submitted on instructions, that there is violation of the terms of contract in the matter of non-functioning of the capacitor. The petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that it was never noticed by the petitioner that the capacitor was not functioning and that since the motor was working normally, the petitioner was under the impression that everything was all right and that the bill for Rs. 32,721/- and the additional claim for more than Rs. 3,000/- in Ext. P2 has come as a bolt from the blue.
The Board''s good intentions behind the formation of an APTS cannot be challenged. All the same, when an authority wielding high power is constituted by the Board, it is equally important that necessary built-in measures are made to avoid unnecessary harassment to the innovent consumers. What is revealed in the present case is a negation of justice. If the APTS proceeds on these lines, this Court will be filled with litigations of this nature. It is for the Board to find out means and measures to check this tendency on the part of the APTS and to curtail its powers to the appropriate measure. In the matter of electrical installations, it is not unusual that some minor parts of the system go wrong off and on very often. This may not be noticed by the consumer at all. In such cases, it should be the duty of the Board to point out the violation or lapses to the consumer and give reasonable time to the consumer to rectify the defect rather than forcing the consumer to approach this Court as the last resort under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is a matter which requires urgent attention of the Board.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent over to the Secretary of the KSEB so that the matter would be brought to the notice of the Chairman for ensuring that necessary measures can be conceived and implemented to avoid unnecessary harassment to the consumers. It might not perhaps be out of proportion for this Court to mulct the officers concerned with costs of the petitioner for forcing him to this Court; but I refrain from doing so since judicial restraint is also equally warranted.
Pending consideration of Ext. P4 appeal by the 2nd respondent all proceedings for recovery of the amounts mentioned in Exts. P1 to 3 will stand stayed and the petitioner''s electric supply shall not be affected through any steps taken by the Board based on Ext. P 3 findings.
The standing counsel will ensure that the purport of this judgment is conveyed to the 3rd respondent for immediate compliance.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.