KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 98/2007

JUDGMENT DATED:  05-05-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

APPELLANT

1.      Assistant Executive Engineer,

          Electrical Major Section,

          Ettumanoor.

2.      KSEB, represented by Secretary

          Thiruvananthapuram.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri. V.S. Vineeth Kumar)

Vs

RESPONDENT

A.J. George, Proprietor,

Vellara Rubber Industries,

Thellakom, Kottayam.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

                        The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in CC No. 221/2005 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The energy bill issued by the appellant stands cancelled.

2.      It is the case of the complainant that his is running a small-scale industry as a means of self-employment.  It was not functioning in July, August and September 2005 for want of work.  Hence he remitted monthly minimum charges.  But the opposite parties on 09-09-2005 issued an additional bill for Rs. 41,135/-.  He remitted the amount to avoid disconnection.  Thereafter the meter was changed.  On 10-10-2005 he received another additional bill for Rs. 73,924/-.  According to him as the unit was not functioning, as the meter was faulty, the bills issued are liable to be set aside.

3.      According to the opposite parties the industry of the complainant was functioning from July onwards.  It was closed only from March to June 2005 and only minimum charge was levied for the above period.  As only minimum charge bill was issued in the month of July 2005 a proper bill was prepared taking the average consumption for the preceding 6 months from 31-08-2004 to 28-02-2005 and it was found that 10180 units were consumed.  The bill issued for Rs. 41,135/- was paid without any protest.  For the month of July and September the bill for Rs. 73,924/- was issued based on the average consumption of the previous 6 months as in the case of August 2005.

4.      The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective parties and Exts. A1, B1 to B3.

5.      The Forum declined to set aside the bill issued for the month of August amounting to Rs. 41,135/- as the amount was paid without any protest.  The bill for Rs. 73,924/- was set aside as it was found that there is no evidence to establish the contention of the opposite parties that the industry started functioning from July 2005.  It is the case of the complainant that functioning started only from October 2005.  Hence the bill issued for July 2005 and September 2005 ie, Ext.A1 for a sum of Rs. 73,924/- was set aside

6.      We find that there are certain discrepancies in the manner in which the additional bills have been issued.  It is the case of the opposite parties that the meter was defective from 05-03-2005 to 01-10-2005.  The meter was replaced on 04-10-2005.  The bill for the month of August was issued on 09-09-2005.  But the bill for the month of July and September was issued only in October 2005.  The average consumption taken is for the period prior to March 2005.  It is not explained as to why the bill for July 2005 was issued subsequent to the bill for August 2005.  So also there is no reason as to why bills were not issued taking the average subsequent to the installation of the new meter.  All the same, we find that in view of the finding of the Forum that there is no objective evidence adduced to establish that the industry started functioning from July 2005 the opposite parties are entitled for only the minimum for the period of July and September 2005.  In fact, the opposite parties are entitled only for the minimum during August 2005 also on the reasoning of the Forum.  In the circumstances, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

                                    JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

Sr.