The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant society had an Electric connection from the opposite party. According to the petitioner more than 200 domestic water supply consumers are using the water connections from the society for them domestic use. The complainant society paid monthly charges as per the bills and invoices given to them and there was no dues at all payable by the complainant to the opposite party. The monthly expenses of the samithy is divided usually among the members for every month to be paid to the society in time. On 16.7.2007 the Ist opposite party issued an invoice No.21308 dated 18.5.2007 for an amount of Rs.16,578/- to be remitted on or before 30.7.2007. The bill issued is illegel irregular and without any basis and it lacks bonafides. As per law,

-2-

the claim for dues if any for more than 6 months are barred by law of limitation. The meter reading was not taken properly by the opposite parties. So the petitioner states that their negligance on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

The notice was served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows: The electric connection was provided in the name of president, Thekkekaras water supply samithi. The connection was 3 phase service connection with connected load of IP11- 330 w. As per the list submitted by the complainant at Electrical section pala the number of water supply consumers under the connection was 160 numbers and not 200 as stated by the petitioner in the petition. The complainant failed to report the increased number of water supply consumers to the section office in time. The service connection was effected using 3 single phase meters due to the shortage of a single 3 phase meter. Since the main load was a single 3 phase meter the readings in these 3 single phase meters are to be almost equal. The total consumption was the sum of the readings in the 3 single phase meters. From January 2005 to July 2005 one of the single phase meters was faulty. During the meter faulty period consumption taken was the sum of the other two meters only. By mistake the average for the 3^rd faulty meter was not included in the demand 1/2005 to 7/2005. The regional Audit officers during their Audit found out this mistake and asked to recover the loss occurred to KSEB.

Hence the bill dated 18.5.2007 was issued. This was a short assessment bill for the period from 1/05 to 7/05. From the date of installation to till date the connected load was same and it consists mainly of a single 3 phase motor with 15 H.P. Rating. Since the service connection is for the water supply scheme the working

-3-

pattern is also same over a period. The single 3 phase meter on 15.11.2005. From 1/2006 to 7/2006 the monthly average consumption was seen as around 2010 units. But from the period from 1/05 to 7/05 the average current charge demanded was around 1300 units only. The average monthly unit of 3^rd faulty meter of around 675 units was not demanded by mistake. Hence to recover the lossess occurred to the KSEB the short assessment bill dated 18.5.2007 for Rs. 16578 was issued. The opposite parties are acted as per rules. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint may be dismissed with costs.

The complainant filed proof Affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits. A1 and A2. The opposite party filed proof Affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits B1 and B2.

Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidence. The copy of certificate to which the complaint was registered as society under the travancore Cochin charitable society Act is produced and the same is marked as ext.A2. The demand notice dated 18.5.07 issued by the opposite party is marked as ext.B1. Ext. B2 is the copies of meter reading register. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had issued additional bill without any basis. According to them they have not liable to pay any amount to the opposite party. The opposite party has taken a contention that the additional bill which was issued to the complainant due to the non functioniong of a

-4-

single phase meterfrom January 2005 to July 2005. According to them due to the shortage of 3 phase meter the opposite party has provided 3 single

phase meter to the complainant. So Accordingly the other two single phase meter was working properly and the 3^rd one was faulty and not get the meter readings.

According to the opposite party there was a mistake done by their part that they have not issued the bill for the faulty 3^rd single phase meter. The mistake was found out by the Audit Officer and issued the bill. From the available documents and evidence it can be seen that there was a mistake done by the opposite party not issuing the bill at the relevent time. The complainant has not no case that the opposite party had issued bill for the energy not consumed by the complainant. As far as the opposite party is concern the complainants are liable to pay the readings shown in the 3 single phase meters. Admitedly the opposite party has issued only the average consumption of the 3^rd single phase faulty meter. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the opposite party issued additional bill for a non consumed of energy. Moreover there was no case that the opposite party has issued penal charge, surcharge etc. We find that the bill issued by the opposite party is for the energy consumed by the complainant for the period which the 3^rd single phase meter become faulty ie.From January 2005 to July 2005. Hence we have no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be dismissed.

-5-

In the result the complaint is dismissed. Both parties will settle their respective costs.