By Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant availed a temporary electricity connection for the purpose of construction works at the premises of his new house. The meter readings on 02-12-2006 and 02-02-2007 was 0016. There was no work in the premises for about six months. But the meter reading on 03-4-2007 was 1052. Complainant was issued a bill for rs.9,294/- by opposite party. Complainant raised objections and requested opposite party to test the meter. He filed complaint on 10-4-2007. After repeated requests an Oversear came and checked the meter. He opined that there is short circuit in the service connection and that the energy was being earthed. That this was noted by the Oversear on the reverse side of the complaint lodged by the complainant. Even then opposite party did not take any action to revise or cancel the bill. Complainant alleges that the meter is not recording correctly. Even though he approached Executive Engineer with this grievance no steps were taken. Later he paid the bill. Complainant alleges deficiency in service and prays to set aside the bill and also for compensation and costs.

2. Version was filed by first opposite party on behalf of second opposite party also. It is stated that the connection was availed to a temporary shed for construction purposes. The meter installed was a good one and has no defects. The meter reading on 10/2006 was 0016 and the reading on 4/2007 was 1052. Bill was issued for 1036 units consumed by the complainant. That opposite party informed the complainant that the meter is correct and that he could have it tested by taking necessary steps. Complainant refused to take any steps as provided by the law. That complainant is responsible for maintaining sufficient protection for the meter,and metering equipments. The shed in which the meter was kept has been demolished b y the complainant and the meter remains exposed. The bill was issued as per energy recorded in the meter. Complainant is liable to pay the same. That there is no deficiency in service.

3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by one Chalil Marakkar alias Bava who contends to be the power of attorney of the complainant. Exts.A1 to A6 marked for the complainant. Opposite party filed counter affidavit. No documents marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced oral evidence.

4. Complainant is aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.A1 bill for Rs.9,294/- which is Ext.A1. He alleges that the meter is incorrect and prays for cancellation of this bill. In the affidavit another bill dated, 03-10-2007 for Rs.3,196/- which is Ext.A5 is also challenged and sought to be set aside. The affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant is filed by a stranger. Though it is stated that the person who has filed the affidavit is the power of attorney holder of the complainant, neither has the complainant produced any such power of attorney nor has he made an application to accept and allow the power of attorney to conduct the case on his behalf. Hence any evidence tendered as per this affidavit is unacceptable and is only to be disregarded.

5. The complainant alleges that the meter is defective and is not recording correct consumption. As per Regulation 42 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005, ’should the consumer dispute the accuracy of the meter installed in his premises, he may send a written application to the Assistant Engineer and also pay the prescribed fee for the test. On receipt of the application and testing fee, the Assistant Engineer shall have the mater specially tested by the Board, or Electrical Inspector to Government.’ The complainant herein has not remitted the necessary fees for conducting the test of meter. Hence his allegation that meter is incorrect is unsustainable.

6. Further, opposite party has produced the meter reading register as per order in I.A.41/2008 filed by the complainant’s counsel for production of the document. As per this document the bill amount for 02-02-2007 is Rs.120/-. The bill amount for 03-4-2007, 02-6-2007, 01-8-2007, 03-10-2007 and 03-12-2007 are Rs.9,294/- Rs.120/-, Rs.120/-, Rs.3,196/- and Rs.120/- respectively. The variation shows that the meter was recording correct energy. It indicates that the bills issued are proper legal and also that the meter is correct. On perusal of records we do not find any substance in the contention raised by complainant. He has requested for cancellation of the two bills which are slightly high. No pleadings or evidence is put forward as to the grounds for cancellation of Ext.A5 bill. The complainant has failed to establish any case in his favour. We do not find deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed . No costs.

Dated this 15th day of January, 2010.

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President

1. According to the complainant he availed of a gas connection from the opposite parties by depositing a sum of Rs.5750/-. As the supply of gas was irregular the complainant does not wish to continue consumership under the opposite parties and hence requested for refund of Rs.5750/- deposited by him with the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not accede to his claim. Hence the complaint.

2. Opposite party No.1 which is a bank contended that the said amount received from the

complainant has been remitted to opposite party No.2 and that there is no deficiency of service on their part.

3. Opposite party No.2 contended that the petition is not maintainable before the Forum. Further that the supply of gas became irregular because M/s Koldy Petroleum India Ltd. with whom second opposite party had tie up withdraw from the supply of gas. The complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount.

4. It is well settled preposition of law that Forum can exercise jurisdiction over service rendered by Co-operative societies. We have therefore no hesitation to hold that the complaint is maintainable.

4. Payment of the amount of Rs.5750/- is admitted by opposite party No.1. Nobody can be compelled to be a consumer. Complainant can at any time withdraw from the consumer relationship with opposite parties. At the time of withdrawal he is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by the complainant. Complainant is liable to surrender the empty gas cylinders and regulator if any.

5. In the result the complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 and 2 is ordered to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.5750/-(Rupees five thousand seven hundred and fifty only) along with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of the refund the complainant shall return the empty cylinders and regulator if any with him.

Dated this 9^th day of February, 2010.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 LPG Consumer Book

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER