Case of the petitioner's is as follows.

Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party electricity Board with vide consumer No. 4924 of the electrical section, Pampady. Petitioner states that first opposite party installed electronic meters at the residence of the petitioner during the month of August, 2002. Since the meter was showig excess reading petitioner insisted to replace the above mentioned defective meter. On the basis of the request of the petitioner first opposite party checked the meter vide No. 0044132 ,with a standard reference meter and found that meter was defective. So, the defective meter was replaced by meter No. 925789. According to the petitioer he remitted the least of the

-2-

preceedig bills that amounting Rs. 561/- from 31..5..2005. Petitioner states that the said amount was accepted by the first opposite party as per a decision of the Hon'bleLokayuktha . First opposite party adjusted the excess electricity cosumption shown in the defective meter for the period from 20..12..2005 to 19..1..2006 in bill No. 5 dt: 17..2..2006. The first opposite party agreed to the petitioer for refud of the excess amout of the electricity charges collected from him from 1..8..2002 to 19..2..2005. But the first opposite party did not made refund as agreed. So the petitioer sumitted complaits to the Electricity Ministerand Hon'ble Minister forwarded the same to the Deputy Chief Egieer, Pala. While being so, opposite party issued a bill alleging an arrear amout of Rs. 2035/- to the petitioner. Since the petitioer has not made paymet opposite party disconnected the energy supply so, the petitioner paid the amout of Rs. 2035 uder protest and got reconnection. Petitioner states that the act of the opposite party is clear deficiency of service . So, he prays for refund of excess electricity charge collected from him and he claims a compesation of Rs. 50,000/-.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party Mariyamma Eype is the cosumer of the opposite party and petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition.Petitioner is not a consumer as envisaged under section 2 (b) (ii) of the C.P Act 1986 . Opposite party contented that electronic meter installed the consumer premises was never faulty. They admitted that the petitioner had requested to replace the electronic meter fitted at his premises with a mechaical one. On receipt of the complaint the meter was checked by the opposite party and found that meter was working properly and explained to the petitioner

-3-

that replacement of the mechanical meter instead of electronic meter cannot be allowed because the opposite party were in the processof erasing out all mechanical meter with electronic meter. Petitioner remitted electricity charges as per the electronic meter for one year. On 1..4..2005 opposite party received a complaint from the petitioner alleging that bill issued on 29..3..2005 was excess. So, another inspection was done on 7..4..2005 and intimated the petitioner about his right to have the meter tested at a standard laboratory and advise him to remitt requisite fee for testing the meter if he wished to do so. According to clause 35 of the conditions of supply 1990, the meter can be tested by the board or electrical inspector on receipt of an application from the consumer by paying the prescribed fee. But the petitioner refused to remit testing fee. On 1..6..2005 petitioner issued a letter to the opposite party stating that he will pay only the least amount ever papid by him based on a decission of Hon'ble Lokayuktha in a case in which he was not a party. Considering the nature of the complaint opposite party got special sanction from the appropriate authority and the meter was specifically tested. The meter under dispute was tested at the standard laboratory and found to be OK. Since the test report was not available the current charges remitted by the petitioner was accepted by the opposite party and no person from the office of the opposite party given up the arrear amount as averred by the petitioner in his petition. The complaint forwarded by the Electricity Minister to the Deputy Chief Engineer was disposed by that office and said fact was intimated to the petitioner. Opposite party contented that there was no deficiency in service on their part and no reliefs sought for by the petition is allowable. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

-4-

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii) Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A 21 documen ts on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B9 documents on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

Even though no seperate issue with regard to the maintainability was raised since, the opposite party taken a contention that the petition is not maintainable that question is to be decided first. As per section 2 (d) consumer includes any beneficiary of service otherthan the person who hires or avails the service for consideration. So, as a beneficiary the petitioner can be considered as a consumer so, the petition is maintainable.

Crux of the complaint is that petitioner is claiming refund of the excess amount collected from the petitioner from 1..8..2002 to 19.12..2006 as per an excess reading shown in the defective meter No. 044132. Opposite party produced meter reading test certificate issued by the TMR division of the electricity board and said document is marked as Ext. B7. From Ext. B7 test report it can be seen that meter of the petitioner with vide No. 044132 is found OK and furthermore petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove that said meter was faulty. The case of the petitioner is that as per an order of Hon'ble Lokayuktha the petitioner is only liable to remit the minimum previous bills issued to him. We are of the opinion that since the meter of the petitioner was OK.

-5-

Petitioner is bound to pay the amount for which the electricity he actially consumed. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is liable to be dismissed. In the

result petition is dismissed.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of February, 2009.