CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC No. 5/2008 Thurssday, the 11th day of November, 2010 Petitioner : Mathew Joseph, Vengachottil, Athirampuzha P.O Kottayam. (By Adv. Jaison Paliyil) Opposite parties : 1) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Ettumanoor, Kottayam 2) The Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan. Thiruvananthapuram. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Case of the petitioner filed on 29..4..2002, is numbered as O.P No. 129/02. During trial in compliance of the order of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in O.P No. 15099/2000. Consumer Fora returned the petition to the petitioner for presenting it before the proper authority. Subsequently petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala as per WP(c) No. 21052 of 2004. Hon’ble High Court of Kerala directed the Forum to consider the complaint. As per the said order the case in hand was renumbers as 5/08. The crux of the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the consumer of the opposite party electricity board with vide consumer No. 3544. Petitioner is conducting a milk processing plant availing the service of opposite party. The meter reading was taken by Junior Engineer of the opposite party and bills were issued to the -2- petitioner. Petitioner remitted the entire bills without any default. Opposite party on 12..3..2002 issued a letter to to one Mathew Joseph, Venathadathil, Athirampuzha without showing the consumer number of the consumer. In the said letter it is shown that the audit wing of the opposite party short assessed the petitioner for 5/97 to 3/98. As per the audit petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,89,777/-. In the said letter it is shown that petitioner regularized this unauthorized connection on 1/98. Attached to the said letter the short assessed bill for Rs. 1,52,037/- is also issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the bill issued to the petitioner is without any basis. Meter attached to the petitioner’s premises was faulty and was replaced on 5/97. Petitioner subsequently filed petition to the Junior Engineer of the opposite party stating that the meter is faulty. Motor installed in the business premises of the petitioners were found faulty so, on 1/98 the petitioner replaced the faulty motor and installed new motors. The installation of the new motor was regularized by the opposite party. According to the petitioner issuance of the additional bill is without any basis and is a clear deficiency in service. So, the petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill for Rs. 1,52,037/- petitioner also claims for refund of the amount remitted by the petitioner during the meter faulty period from 5/97 to 12/97. Petitioner claims Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner had -3- preferred an appeal before as per rule 48 of the conditions of supply, to the Executive Engineer he in turn passed a final order on 28..7..2004. So, said order become final and this petition is not maintainable. The connection of the petitioner is an industrial connection under LT IV category, the unit is a milk chilling processing plant with a connected load of 8 H.P. Later the connected load was raised to 38 H.P with effect from January, 1998. A letter was sent to the consumer intimating him about the circumstances under which short assessment was issued. Since the letter was received by the petitioner he cannot content that it was sent on wrong address. According to the opposite party an inspection was conducted at the accountant general office, Thiruvananthapuram on 14..8..2000. As per their observations and based on the consumption pattern the bill is issued to the petitioner. The consumption of the petitioner was low as 1577 unit in 1/97. Which gradually increased month by month and in 5/97 it reached 5108 KWH. According to the audit party a connected load of 5.918 K.W at ideal condition for 30 days can be possible up to 4260 KWH. Opposite party further contented that as per the admitted case of the petitioner the unit is functioning only for less than 4 months. Opposite party denied the averment of replacement of the motor on several occasions. The motor in the unit was faulty on 12..10..97. The case of the complainant that he brought new motor etc. are false. The bills produced by the complainant is only for the purpose of this petition. Averment of the petitioner that new motor was installed on 1/98 and replacement of the faulty meter on 1/98 are denied by the opposite party. According to the opposite party -4- disputed bill issued to the petitioner is as per rule and there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. 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 the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced disputed bill Dtd: 5..2..2002 said document is marked as Ext. A2. Ext. A2 is for an amount of Rs. 1,52,037/-. In Ext. A2 it is stated that it is a short bill for 5/97 to 3/98 issued as per the audit report of the Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram. Crux of the case of the petitioner is that Ext. A2 bill is issued without any basis. Ext. A3 is a letter dtd: 16..2..2002. In Ext. A3 it is stated that the bill is based on the audit conducted by audit party on 9..8..2000. According to the opposite party the bill is issued based on the observation made in the consumption pattern of the consumer. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the consumption of the consumer was low as 1577 units in 1/97. Which gradually increased month by month and in 5/97 it reached 5108 KW. In an ideal condition with a connected load 5.918 KW for 30 months it can be possible up to 4260 KWA when working at full load at 24 hours. Moreover consumer had regularized connected load of 28.348 with effect from 1/98 by remitting the additional cash deposit. Hence it is evident that the consumer was using the total connected load of 28.348 KW even before 5/97. Further more there is no change in consumption pattern of the consumption even after additional collection load . So, opposite party argued that from the above reasons it can be presumed that consumer was using an unauthorized additional -5- load of 22 KW from 5/97 to 12/97. In our view without any solid evidence issuing bill based on presumptions and assumptions is not allowable. It is admitted that the Junior Engineer of the opposite party conducting inspection, taking meter reading and issuing bills based on the consumption. So, if there is any unauthorized additional load he can inform the same to the opposite party. Opposite party can very well conduct an inspection and issue bill accordingly. In our view issuance of Ext. A2 bill without any clear evidence of unauthorized additional load, is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is allowed. In the result bill with invoice No. BM 51066 for an amount of Rs. 1,52,037/- is cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 11th day of November, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the petitioner Ext. A1: Letter dtd: 6..2..2002 issued by the opposite party. Ext. A2: Bill Dtd: 5..2..2002 issued by the opposite party. Ext. A3: Certified copy of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in WP(c) 21052/04. Documents for the Opposite party Nil. By Order, Senior Superintendent Despatched on / Received on amp/ 5cs. | 
