By Smt.C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President
Complainant challenges a bill issued by first opposite party for Rs.10,823/- dated 28.10.2008.
Facts:
Complainant is a consumer under opposite party for domestic electricity connection with consumer no.6563016727. It is stated that the house is in a dilapidated condition and for more than 5 years the house is lying vacant and unoccupied. The meter was faulty and only minimum charges o Rs85/- was paid by the complainant . Opposite party dismantled the connection on 8/2008 and then issued a bill on 28.10.2008 for Rs. 10,823 /- being a bill for the current charges from 12/2007 to 8/2008. Revenue recovery was also initiated. Complainant alleges that the demand for Rs.10,823/- is without basis. That the meter was faulty and he is liable only to pay average charges of Rs.85/- till date of dismantling the connection. Hence this complaint.
(2)
2. Opposite party filed version admitting the complainant to be a consumer for domestic supply. It is also admitted that the complainant's house is unoccupied. In 8/2006 a hike in the consumption was noticed. The units consumed was 949. At that time as per request of the consumer the bill was reduced to 50 units and revised bill was issued due to doubt on the consumption. Again a hike is seen in the reading noted on 18.12.2007. The consumption noted was 1788 units. Opposite party doubted earth leakage and informed the complainant. He repaired the wirings . Thereafter the reading was less. Bill is issued for the energy consumed by the consumer as recorded buy the readings in the meter. Complainant did not pay the bills. Hence the connection was dismantled and bill was issued for the dues pending till the date of dismantling. Complainant is liable to pay the same. That there is no deficiency.
3. Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by complainant and Ext. A1 to A4 marked for complainant. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Ext. B1 and B2 marked for opposite party.
Complainant is aggrieved by the issuance of Ext. A1 arrear bill dated 28.10.2008. It is his case that the house is lying unoccupied for the last several years and that there is barely any consumption. He placed reliance on Ext .A3 certificate issued by village officer stating that the house is lying unoccupied for past more than six years. Ext A2 series are the electricity bills from 21.08.2006 to20.10.2007. It is seen noted in the bill dated 21.08.2006 that the status of meter is burnt. The previous reading noted is795 and the reading noted on 21.8.2006 is 1744. Thus there was a hike in consumption. When he preferred complaint to opposite party stating that the meter was burnt opposite party revised the bill to Rs. 85/- basing on the average consumption. Complainant has placed much thrust on this bill and contented that meter is faulty. But on perusal of the bimonthly bills produced by complainant it seen that the status of meter is working status from 18.10.2006 . The meter reading noted on 16.02.2007 is1744 .The meter reading noted on 20.10.2007 was 1858. It is clear that after 21.08.2006 the meter was working properly as seen from the bills issued . Opposite party has given revised bill reducing the units to average consumption on 21.08.2006 when the meter was found burnt. Thereafter bills are issued as per meter readings. Ext. B2 is the meter reading register produced by opposite party. The condition of the meter is noted as working till the date of dismantling(18.08.2008).Only because a house remains unoccupied does not call for an inference that there is no consumption of energy. After 18.12.2007 till 18.08.2008 the meter has recorded energy. The average use is 40 to 50 units. If complainant did not want to use energy he could have applied for disconnection and dismantling. Though he contends to have applied there is no reliable evidence to establish this fact. There is nothing to suspect the meter
(3)
reading maintained by opposite party. Electricity consumption may depend even on a single day's
use. We therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the meter readings noted by opposite party . Complainant is bound to pay charges for the energy consumed by him. We hold Ext A1 bill as proper and legal. We are not able to find deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
In the result we dismiss the complaint . There is no order as to costs.
Dated this 26th day of September, 2011.
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to Ext. A4
Ext.A1 : Revenue Recovery notice dated 28-10-2008
Ext.A2 : K.S.E.B. Notice of Disconnection dated 21.08.2006
Ext.A3 : Certificate of Village Officer dated 12.01.2011
Ext.A4 : Receipt issued by Village Office dated 12.01.2011
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to Ext. B2
Ext.B1 : Photocopy of Revenue Recovery Notice dated 28.08.2008
Ext.B2 : True copy of Meter Reading History
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
...
