KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA 153/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 12.3.2009 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B, Karukachal, Kottayam. 2. The Secretary, : APPELLANTS KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Trivandrum. (By Adv.S.Vineeth kumar) Vs. 1. Anjamma John, : RESPONDENTS Vadakeparambil, Panayampala, Karukachal, Kottayam. 2. V.M.John, -do- -do- (By Adv.Jacob Thomas) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in CC.230/06 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The bill issued by the appellant for a sum of Rs.8888/- stands cancelled as per the order of the Forum. 2. It is the case of the petitioners/respondents herein that the electricity meter installed in their premises became faulty in January 2003 itself. The same was brought to the notice of the appellant on 22.2.2003 and also subsequently. Much later an additional bill for a sum of Rs.8888/- was issued directing to remit the amount on or before 25.11.06. It is seen from the bill that by taking the average consumption of 9/05,11/05 and 1/06 ie; after the installation of new meter, were taken for calculating average consumption. During the above period there was high consumption because of the marriage of petitioners son and daughter. 3. The opposite party/appellant had contended that the meter was defective and was not showing any consumption from March 2001 onwards. Bill for an average consumption of 200 units used to be given. In 7/02 the average was reduced to 100 unit upto 5/2005 till the replacement of the meter. The Regional Audit Officer, Kottayam inspected the electrical section during 12/05 and noted that the meter was faulty from 1/2003 to 5/05. The meter was replaced on 19.5.05. The average taken is based on bimonthly consumption for 9/05 ie 256 units, 11/05 ie 358 units and 1/06 ie 342 units. After installation of the new meter next reading was taken on 8.7.05 and the consumption was 235 units for 50 days. As the period does not form a full month the readings of 9/05, 11/05, 1/06 was taken for calculating the average. As per clause 24(v) of the Kerala Electricity Supply code 2005 the appellant is entitled to collect the above amount. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the affidavits of the respective parties and Exts. A1 to A9 documents. 5. The Forum set aside the bill on the ground that the authorities had violated Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. According to the Forum the appellant ought to have got the meter tested by the Electrical Inspector. 6. We find that the contention of the counsel for the petitioners/ respondents that Section 26 applied to the facts situation of the instant case cannot be upheld. Section 26 applies only when there is a dispute as to the functioning of the meter. In the instant case there is no dispute in between the parties as to the fact that the meter was not recording the consumption and was defective from January 2003 onwards. Hence in such a situation the Electrical Inspector has no role to apply. Hence we find the decision of the Forum in this regard is incorrect. 7. All the same, we find that the appellant has not explained as to why the meter was not replaced till 19.5.05 ie till about 2 ½ years after the meter became defective. Further Ext.A2 the impugned bill has been issued only on 20.10.06, that too, after the Audit party pointed out the defective billing. There is no evidence as to whether any action was taken against the officials of the KSEB for the lapse in this regard. The conduct of the appellant clearly amounts to deficiency in service. The consumer has been burdened with a heavy bill with direction to pay the amount in lump. The consumer was forced to approach the Forum in the above context. All the same the consumer is bound to pay the charges for the electricity consumed. 7. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. The petitioners/respondents are directed to pay the amounts less Rs.3000/- in six equal monthly instalments. Rs.3000/- is deducted towards compensation for the travails that had to be faced by the consumer. The consumer will not be liable to pay any surcharge or interest for the amount of Rs.5888/- to be remitted. Appeal is allowed in part as above. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER ps
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU | | 
