KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL 335/08 JUDGMENT DATED: 22.12.09 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. Secretary, K.S.E.B., : APPELLANTS Vydhudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum. 2. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B., Badiadka, Kasargodu. 3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Cherkala, Chengala.P.O., Kasargodu. (By Adv.S.Balachandran) vs. A.K.Abdul Khadar, : RESPONDENT S/o Kunhimahin Kutty, Kottachal House, Adhur.P.O., Kasargodu. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in CC.65/06 in the file of CDRF, Kasargode. The bill issued by the appellant for a sum of Rs.18007/- stands set aside. The appellant is also directed Rs.2000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is running a wood industry as SSI unit and that he has been issued a back assessment bill dated 10.5.06 for Rs.18007/- for the period from May 2004 to December 2004 he has sought for cancellation of the same . According to him the appellant is not entitled to claim the above amount. 3. In the version filed by the opposite parties/appellants it is mentioned that the meter was faulty and the same was changed in September 2004 and again the meter became faulty and it was replaced on October 2004. The average energy consumption for the period subsequent to replacement of the meter was 1647 unit per month. Hence back assessment bill was issued. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1,D1 and D2. 5.Forum has noted that as per Ext.D2 meter reading register extract there was no considerable decrease of consumption of energy during the disputed period. The meter reading register extract examined by the Forum is for the period 4/2000 to 7/2006. It has also to be noted that factors like production, marketing and availability of raw materials etc would reflect the energy consumption. The appellant has issued the bill only when the audit party reported on 5.1.06 that subsequent to the change of meter, back assessment has not been done. Thereafter the bill is issued as back assessment for 6 months prior to May 2004. Evidently no action has been taken against the erring KSEB staff. The consumer cannot be put to difficulties by issuing such back assessment bills after a duration of about 3 years. There is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and also no objective evidence with respect to the reasons for the change of the meter twice in 2004 has been produced. We find there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. In the result appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Ps
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
