THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No29/ 2009 Tuesday, the 19th day of January, 2010. Petitioner : N.A Abraham Nalloor House, Malloossery Kara, Perumbaikkadu Village, Kottayam Dist. (By Adv. K. Santhosh Kumar) Vs. Opposite parties : 1) The Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom Thiruvananthapuram Reptd. By its Secretary 2) The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Gandhi Nagar. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: The petitioner is a consumer of KSEB with vide consumer No. A 49 of Electrical Major Section, Gandhi Nagar. Petitioner is using the above connection for domestic purposes. The average electricity charges of the petitioner was below Rs. 300/-. Petitioner was served with a demand notice cum disconnection notice demanding an amount of Rs. 4760/- alleged to be the dues during the period from April, 2003 to August, 2005 According to the petitioner he is regularly paying the electricity charges as per the bill issued by the second opposite party from time to time. Petitioner states that the issuance of the demand cum disconnection notice is illegal. On enquiry the opposite party stated that the meter of the petitioner was faulty and demand notice is issued for the consumption of electricity for the faulty meter period. According to the petitioner the act of the opposite party in issuing demand notice is a clear deficiency in service. So he -2- prays for cancellation of the bill along with cost and compensation for deficiency in service. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the bill issued is not as a bimonthly bill, but a reassessment bill by charging the consumer during the faulty meter period. The energy meter of the consumer was faulty from 4/03 to 8/2005 Meter was changed during 8/ 2005. On the basis of the average consumption after replacing the faulty meter bill was issued. According to the opposite party bill issued is legal and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 document on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced disputed bill Dtd 1..1..2009 said document is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that the bill is issued as a reassessment bill for the meter faulty period. According to the opposite party meter of the petitioner was faulty from 4/03 to 8/05 Faulty meter was changed on 8/05 and after replacing the faulty meter the average consumption was taken and bills were issued accordingly. In our view issuance of Ext. A1 bill is clear deficiency in service. As per regulation 33 (2) if the board is unable to raise a bill based on meter reading due to its non recording or mal functioning, board shall issue a bill based previous six months average consumption in such cases meter shall be replaced within one month. If the average consumption for the previous six months cannot be taken due to meter ceasing to record consumption for any other reason. Consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding six months after replacement of the faulty meter. Here the opposite party has no case that average consumption for the previous six months, before the meter become faulty, cannot be taken due to meter ceasing to record for any other reason. Further, -3- more the faulty meter of the petitioner was replaced after a long period. The act of the opposite party in issuing additional bill without replaced the faulty meter within one month as per regulation 33 (2) in our view 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 and the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. In the result bill Dtd: 1..1..2009 is cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstances 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 19th day of January, 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: Bill Dtd: 1..1..2009 Document for the Opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of meter reading dairy Ext. B2: Copy of Consumer personal ledger. By Order, Senior Superintendent amp/ 5 cs
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
