KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.606/11

JUDGMENT DATED 12.3.2012

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT 

West Fort Academy for Higher

Education, A unit of West Fort

Higher Education Trust

Reptd. by Managing Trustee                             --  APPELLANT

K.M.Mohandas, Pattore

M.G.Kavu P.O, Thrissur.

   (By Adv.Manish)

                   Vs.

1.      Asst.Engineer,

          Electrical Section, KSEB

          Mulamkunnathukavu.                                 --  RESPONDENTS

2.      KSEB, reptd. by Secretary,

          Thiruvananthapuram.

            (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the complainant in OP.583/04 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.  The complaint stands dismissed.

          2. The complainant has disputed the bills issued by the opposite parties dated 24.4.04  for Rs.73,122/-  and the bill dated 29.4.04 for Rs.21054/-.  According to the complainant, the bills issued are illegal and it is not evident from the bills as to on what basis the bills has been issued.  He has sought for setting aside the  said bills.  

 3.  The opposite parties have   filed version pointing out that the connection was taken for construction purpose under VII A tariff.  On 16.4.04, an investigation was conducted and it was found that one of the  phases of   3 phase meter from which the power is taken by the complainant was not working.  The site mahazer was prepared by board officials and the matter was brought to the attention of Sri.Mohandas, Electrical Engineer of the complainant Institution who has signed in the mahazer.  The three phase energy meter was replaced.    The initial reading of new meter was 10 and the final reading of faulty meter was 16299.  The reading of the old meter was 11692 and the reading of the old meter in February to 16.4.04 was  11692  and that reading in the new meter on 24.4.04 was 1064.  The difference in reading in the old meter during February to 24.4.04 was 4607 units which is the consumption of 2 phases as the third phase was not recording energy.  Hence the consumption for the period would work out to 4607 x 1.5 ie; 6911.  The consumption from 16.4.04 to 24.4.04 was 1064 – 10 ie; 1054 units.  Hence the total consumption for 2 months comes to    6911 + 1054 which would be     7965 units.  It is for the same the bill is issued for Rs.73122/-.  In the previous 4 months ie; 10/03 to 2/04, 4639 units were recorded in the meter and 2320 units were left unrecorded.  It is for the same bill for Rs.21,054/- has been issued.  No penalty has been imposed.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts. P1 to P4 and R1 to R3.

          5. We find that the site mahazer has been produced along with the version.  But the same has been omitted to be marked by the opposite party.  It is seen that one Mohandas as  has been mentioned   in the version has signed in the mahazer.  The above Mohandas was not examined by the complainant.  As per the above site mahazer it is noted that on inspection one phase of the meter was not working.    Hence,   the meter was replaced   it is for the  escaped energy that the bill has been issued.  Ext.R1 contains the details as to how the amount has been arrived at with respect to Ext.P1 bill ie;  Rs.73,122/- along with the units consumed.   Half of the units consumed is added so as to incorporate the energy consumed through the missing phase.  Ext.P2 bill is with respect to the escaped energy for the period from   10/2003 to 2/2004.  For the above period regular charges has been paid and hence the same is only with respect to the escaped energy due to non recording of one phase. 

          6. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that it is Regulation 42 (3) of the Conditions of Supply 2005 that applies.    As per the above provision in case of faulty meter average of 6 months after replacement of the meter is to be taken.  It is pointed out by the counsel for the  KSEB that the above regulations came  in to effect subsequently.    In the instant case, the dispute is not with respect to the faulty meter but regarding the non recording of one phase which is on account of some mistake in connecting  the phase to the meter.  It is pointed out that the opposite parties have just changed the meter as well as a matter of abundant caution.  There is no case that the calculation  has been done erroneously  or that the reading shown is incorrect.  The genuineness of the site mahazer has not been disputed.  In the circumstances we find   that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for.  The appeal is dismissed.

          The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT