Kerala

Malappuram

CC/07/100

KUNHIKKOYA. V.P, S/O. CHERIYA MUHAMMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB - Opp.Party(s)

C. HAMEED

28 Mar 2009

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, PIN-676 505
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/100

KUNHIKKOYA. V.P, S/O. CHERIYA MUHAMMED
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB
SECRETARY, KSEB
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. AYISHAKUTTY. E 2. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI 3. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President


 

1. Complainant who is a consumer under opposite party for domestic electricity connection is aggrieved by the issuance of bill dated, 06-10-2007 for Rs.4,622/-. He avers that due to the fault of the meter there was a spurt in recording consumption and that the bill has to be set aside.

     

2. Opposite party filed version admitting that complainant is a consumer for domestic purpose. It is also stated that complainant used to pay charges for the regular bills issued to him. It is stated that on 05-6-2007 the reading was 723 and bimonthly consumption was 131 units only. On 06-8-2007 the reading noted was 1801 so the consumption recorded was 1078 units and so the bill for Rs.4,533/- was issued. Complainant protested and as per request of complainant the meter was replaced on 14-8-2007. The old meter was send for testing to Electrical Inspectorate, Kozhikkode. They certified that the meter was working properly. The reading taken in October after placing the new meter was only 66 units. This must be because complainant had reduced his consumption. The bill dated, 06-10-2007 for Rs.4,622/- was issued including the charges of Rs.4,533/- and charges of 66 units. That complainant is liable to pay the amount.

     

3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 marked for him. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Ext.B1 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

     

4. Complainant is aggrieved that bimonthly bill issued for themonths 05-6-2007 to 06-8-2007 is incorrect due to the meter not recording properly. He affirms that for the past 9 months together his total consumption was only 723 units. Whereas the meter recorded 1078 units in two months which is due to error of meter. Opposite party admitted that the consumption of complainant is very low and that a spurt is seen in the alleged period. Ext.A1 to A4 bills would show that complainant was paying less than 200/- as electricity charges on bimonthly bills. It is candid that Ext.A5 bill for Rs.4,533/- dated, 06-8-2007 for the period 6/2007 to 8/2007 is high. The spurt in a single bill definitely indicates error in recording energy. Therefore we are of the view that the bill has to be set aside. But complainant is liable to pay charges for the energy consumed during this period. In our view the issuance of revised bill for the above period taking into consideration average consumption of six months succeeding to the disputed period would be adequate relief to the consumer.

     

5. In the result we allow the complaint and order that Ext.A5 bill for Rs.4,533/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred and fifty three only) dated, 06-8-2007 is cancelled. Opposite party shall issue revised bill for the period included in Ext.A5 bill taking into consideration the average consumption for six months after the disputed period. The time limit for compliance of this order is fixed as two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We make no order as to costs.

     

    Dated this 28th day of March, 2009.


 

 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

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 A5

Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the demand and disconnection notice dated,

07-12-2006 for Rs.157/- issued by opposite party to consumer No.21387

Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the demand and disconnection notice dated,

06-02-2007 for Rs.86/- issued by opposite party to consumer No.21387

Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the demand and disconnection notice dated,

07-4-2007 for Rs.193/- issued by opposite party to consumer No.21387

Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the demand and disconnection notice dated,

05-6-2007 for Rs.131/- issued by opposite party to consumer No.21387

Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the demand and disconnection notice dated,

06-8-2007 for Rs.4,533/- issued by opposite party to consumer No.21387

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1

Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the report of Meter Testing and Standards Laboratory,

Kozhikkode.


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER




......................AYISHAKUTTY. E
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
......................MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN