IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 AS.No. 524 of 2002(A) --------------------- OS.91/1996 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------- MOHAMMED KUNJU NAWAB, KOCHALUMMOOTIL VEEDU, ADINADU THEKKUMURI, ADINADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KARUNAGAPPALLY ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NORTH MAJOR SECTION, KARUNAGAPPALLY. R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN.SC,KSEB THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.524 OF 2002 ............................................. Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Principal Sub Judge, Kollam in O.S.No.91/1996. The suit is one for declaration, injunction and realisation of money. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is consumer No.10936 of Karunagappally North Major Section under the Kerala State Electricity Board with a connected load of 200 watts. According to the plaintiff, he had never exceeded consumption of the said quantity and while so on 29.11.1995 a notice was served on the plaintiff demanding an amount of Rs.28,212/=. It is incorrect and therefore the suit is filed. 3. The defendants on the other hand would contend that the plaintiff is consumer No.10936. The Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the premises of the plaintiff on 28.11.1995 and found that unauthorised load was connected to nearby five shop rooms and therefore it had sent a notice : 2 : A.S.NO.524 OF 2002 for realisation of Rs.28,512/=. Therefore it is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. It is also stated that the plaintiff moved a petition for damages before the Consumer Redressal Forum as O.P(Q).No.36/1996 and that has also been dismissed. The trial court on an appreciation of the materials available before it, dismissed the suit without costs. It is against that decision, the plaintiff has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Kerala State Electricity Board. The short point that arises for determination is whether there has been unauthorised connected load which had made the Board to conduct a squad inspection and thereafter levy the charges of Rs,28,512/=. Ext.B1 is the mahazar prepared by the Squad wherein it is stated that there had been unauthorised usage with excess consumption that had resulted in the issuance of notice. The conduct of the plaintiff also has to be considered. The plaintiff denied everything and sent complaints and representations before almost all the authorities including the Chief Minister of Kerala and in an : 3 : A.S.NO.524 OF 2002 adalath conducted, was satisfied with the payment of the amount in installments and thereafter in order to get the reconnection, deposited first installment and thereafter filed the suit against the Board. So by the conduct of the plaintiff, it is seen that he had accepted the liability. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would strongly contend before me that the meter number shown as 20284745 whereas in KSE Board's card it is shown as 0286017. It is true that there is some mistake in the meter number. One does not know whether the meter has been changed or not. Whatever it may be, it is explicitly clear from Ext.B1 that the authorities had inspected the premises of the person who is having the consumer number 10936. Just because there is a mistake in the meter number, one cannot jump to the conclusion that everything is incorrect. On information, the authorities had rushed to the place, had conducted a surprise inspection, prepared mahazer and had acted in accordance with the rules to make the plaintiff liable for the connection. So as stated by me earlier, the conduct of the plaintiff is absolutely unfair which can be seen from : 4 : A.S.NO.524 OF 2002 his various attitudes at each point of time. He accepted the installment facility, paid the first installment, got the reconnection and then ceased to pay the amount and thereafter instituted the suit. 6. Since the evidence of PW1 is unacceptable and the consumer number is same and the premises inspected is that of the consumer number, I hold that the plaintiff has to pay the amount for which unauthorised connection had been given by him to the neighbouring shops. Therefore I find that the court below has entered into a proper finding and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 7. Further a case is filed to restrain the Electricity Board from collecting and recovering the electricity dues. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Ashwani Kumar (1997 (5) SCC 120) held that there is a bar of jurisdiction for the civil court to entertain. I do not want to throw out the claim merely on technical grounds that is why I have discussed the matter on merits and found that there is nothing to interfere with the decision of the trial court and further that really there is a : 5 : A.S.NO.524 OF 2002 bar as well. So I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Therefore the appeal fails, but I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 6 : A.S.NO.524 OF 2002 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.524 OF 2002 ............................................. 12th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T