KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No..1133/01 JUDGMENT DATED 18.2.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Kasargod in OP.186/2000 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Asst.Executive Engineer, : APPELLANT Electrical Major Section, Cherkala, Kasargod – 671541 (By Ad.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. B.Ibrahim, S/o Fakruddin, Erumalam House, : RESPONDENT Alampady.P.O., Kasargod. (By Adv.R.Sreeram) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/ Electricity Board that is under orders to issue a fresh bill to the complainant for the consumption of electricity for 6 months prior to the demand made in Ext.P1 adjustment invoice dated 4.5.2000. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is a consumer and that he occupied the premises only on 27.8.98 with consumer No. 5156. It is also contended that even when the meter is put off the meter is running. The above fact was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities after his occupancy. He was remitting monthly bill of Rs.154/- regularly. He was served with an adjustment invoice of Rs.26391/-for the period from 4.5.2000. He sought for setting the same cancelled and has also contended that the claim is barred by limitation. 3. The opposite party has filed version that the complainant was remitting as per the provisional invoice card paying current charges for 60 units per month. The impugned bill is for the period from 11/96 to 4/2000 for the period of 41 months. There was a mistake in the original bill issued and the revised to Rs.20,084/-. The reading taken for 4/2000 was 3047 units and in 11/96 was 6550 units. Hence the actual consumption for 41 months comes to 6497 units with an average consumption of 158.46 units per month. The delay in issuing the bill was on account of dearth of staff in the billing section. The consumer was allowed easy instalment. The fact that the meter is defective was brought to the notice of the opposite parties is incorrect. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of RW1 and Exts.P1 to P5, C1 and C2. No evidence was adduced by the opposite party/appellant. 5. The Forum has overruled the contention of the complainant that the claim is barred by limitation. A commission was taken out in the matter and the meter was examined by the electrical inspectorate which has reported that the meter is defective. The Commission has also reported that even if all connections are disconnected the meter is still running. The version of PW1 that he has brought to the notice to the opposite party that the meter is defective that even if the main switch is put off the meter is running. The above version is also supported by the report of the commissioner. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the above phenomenon can happen on account of earthing due to defective connection given. But we find that no evidence in this regard was adduced before the Forum. It is admitted that the adjustment invoice issued was incorrect as there was a mistake of addition of about 6000 Rupees. Negligence is write large on the part of the appellants. Even when a person is foisted with liability for a period even admittedly for about 5 years previous the bill was prepared in an irresponsible manner. It was in the above circumstances that the Forum has setaside the bills issued based on a defective meter. The Forum has disallowed the claim for compensation and has directed the appellant to issue fresh bill for six months prior to the date of payment. We find that the order is quite reasonable. No interference is call for. The appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER | 
