<br /> By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: <br /> <br /> The case of the petitioner is as follows:<br /> <br /> Petitioner is residing from 1994 in the house situated in Varandarappilly Village Sy. 398/1, 399, and 396/2. The electric c consumer number to that house is 4588. The property was purchased from Karuveettil Narayani Amma. The said house was very old and he constructed a new house near the old house and applied for electric connection to the new house. But it was delayed due to departmental formalities and non-availability of stamp papers. The electricity charges were paid regularly and there is no arrears. Meanwhile on 17.11.05 the first respondent, Sub Engineer and lineman inspected the premises and made to sign on some papers. Later on 2.12.05 a bill demanding to pay Rs.5400/- was issued and it was explained that the bill is for unauthorized use of electricity. He complained about the bill and it was reduced to Rs.4050/-. There are no arrears and the complainant is not liable to pay the charges stated in the impugned bill. The board had compelled for payment of the amount in the impugned bill for getting connection to the new building. Hence had paid the bill amount of Rs.4050/- and the connection charge. The charge for the new connection was also paid. Petitioner is not liable to pay the disputed bill amount. Hence this complaint.<br /> 2. The counter is as follows: Only on 8.12.05 the connection has transferred in the name of complainant. There was a new house constructed near the old consumer number. The inspection to the premises was done on 16.11.05 and the other statements are not correct hence denied. It was seen during the inspection that electricity is using to the new house as unauthorisedly. So a bill of Rs.4050/- is issued. This is for the period of 18 days only. He is entitled to pay the charges. The connection has transferred in the name of complainant. There is no deficiency in service. Hence dismiss. <br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are:<br /> (1) Is the impugned bill is genuine?<br /> (2) Is there any deficiency in service?<br /> (3) Reliefs and costs. <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P7 and Exts. R1 to R5.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1: Ext. R5 is the alleged site mahazar. On the basis of this Ext. P1 bill is issued. From Ext. R5 it can be realized that on 16.11.05 the premises was inspected by the Board and unauthorised consumption of electricity was found. The mahazar can be taken as a document for perusal, it cannot be considered as a mahazar. Since the formality of a mahazar is not complied, we discarded the mahazar as a mahazar. From Ext. R5 it is clear that the construction of the new house is completed. The connected load to the old consumer was 1566 and the new house is 2780. The unauthorized use was also without the consent of the Board. Even if the complainant had started steps for taking new connection, it has not obtained. So it is clear that he has used the current supply for the new house. Hence he is liable to pay the charge stated in Ext.P1 bill. The calculation is also there. The amount sought is already remitted by the complainant. Since he is entitled to pay the charge, the Board need not return the amount. The point is found in favour of the respondents. <br /> <br /> 5. Points-2 and 3: There is unauthorized use of electricity on the part of the complainant. So he is bound to pay the charge. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.<br /> 6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs and compensation.<br />