THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC. No.221/2009 Thursday, the 29th day of April, 2010 Petitioner : Mathew M. Philip, Proprietor, Manayil Cable Vision, Kooroppada P.O (By Adv. Anish Ramakrishnan) Vs. Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram Reptd. By its Secretary. 2) Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Pampadi. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner as a means of self employment is conducting cable net work at Kooroppada. Electric connection to petitioners business concern was supplied by the opposite party with vide Consumer number 16496. According to the petitioner there is no pending bills towards opposite party. On 6..7..2009 opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 20,072/-. In the bill opposite party shown an amount of Rs. 6,756/- as the regular current bill and Rs. 13,316/- as arrear. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in issuing a bill for an amount of Rs. 13,316/-, as arrear bill, is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction setting aside a bill Dtd: 6..7...2009. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party, petitioner is not a consumer. Opposite party contented that in the bill of May 2006, instead of the charges for -2- consumption of 1066 units charges for consumption of 66 unit was issued to the petitioner mistakenly. Mistakes were later identified by the internal audit and communicated by the Regional Audit Officer. Opposite party contented that demand of electricity charge is not like an assessment to tax and if there is mistake or under billing it is upon to the opposite party to rectify the mistake. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service. 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) 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 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite parties. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced the disputed bill Dtd: 6..7..2009 said bill is marked as Ext. A1. In Ext. A1 Rs. 6,756/- is shown as energy charge and an amount of Rs. 13,316/- is shown as arrear but no details regarding the arrears is shown. As per regulation 35 of KSEB terms and conditions of the supply 2005 a bill shall contain the period covered by the bill energy consumption and other parameters etc.. Further more as per regulation 37 (5) if the Board established that it has under charged the consumer either by review or otherwise, the board may recover the amount under charged from the consumer by issuing a bill and in such case at least 30 days shall be given for the consumer to make payment against the bill. While issuing the bill, the board will specify the amount to be recovered as a separate item in the subsequent bill or as a separate item with an explanation on this account. Here from Ext. A1 it can be seen that the norms of regulation 37 (5) is not complied. So, in our view act of the opposite party in issuing a bill without complying formalities stated in 37 (5) of conditions of supply is a clear deficiency in service. But in our view disabling the board from collecting the amount -3- which the consumer should have to be paid is un warranted. Further more the demand of the opposite party is for the proper charges due from the consumer. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed in part. Bill Dtd: 6..7..2009 for an amount of Rs. 20072/- is cancelled. Opposite party shall issued revised fresh bill to the petitioner as per regulation 37 (5). An amount of Rs. 2,000/- is ordered as compensation for the deficiency committed by the opposite party. Petitioner is also allowed to remit the revised bill in 3 monthly equal installments along with future monthly bills. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of April, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/ APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner: Ext. A1: Bill Dtd:: 6..7..2009 Documents for the Opposite party Ext. B1: Copy of the meter reading register. Ext. B2: Copy of consumer personal ledger Ext. B3: Copy of the audit report of page No. 13 & 14. Ext. B4 Duplicate copy of the demand issued to the petitioner. By Order, Senior Superintendent amp/ 5 cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | , | | 
