KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL.486/05 JUDGMENT DATED : 12.5.10 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Executive Engineer, : APPELLANTS K.S.E.B., Cherkala, 2. The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom, Trivandrum. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. B.Ramakrishna Bhat, : RESPONDENT S/o Krishna Bhat, Advocate, Srirampet, Kasaragod. (By Adv.K.Shri Hari Rao) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 20th January 2005 in OP.No.247/04. The above complaint was preferred alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A1 demand notice for Rs.8479/-. It was alleged that the complainant has not consumed so much of energy and that demand notice is issued without any basis. It is further alleged that the meter was defective and it was subsequently rectified. So, the complainant prayed for getting the said bill for Rs.8479/- cancelled with compensation and cost. 2. The 1st opposite party filed written version for himself and on behalf of the 2nd opposite party. They denied the alleged deficiency in service and contended that impugned bill was issued based on the consumption. Thus, the opposite parties requested for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and on the side of the opposite parties DWs 1 and 2 were examined. Ext.A1 to A7 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order canceling the impugned bill for Rs.8479/- with a liberty to realize sum of Rs.405/- being the normal current charge. Thereby the opposite parties were directed to adjust the amount of Rs.8074/- towards the future bills. Aggrieved by the said order, present appeal is filed by the opposite parties therein. 4. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the appellants/opposite parties. We heard the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. The materials on record would make it clear that the complainant had no occasion to consume so much of energy as contended by the opposite parties. It would also reveal the fact that there was earth leakage and so the consumption of energy has been recorded by the energy meter without consuming so much of energy by the complainant/consumer. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the aforesaid earth leakage was detected and rectified. Any how it is come out in evidence that complainant/consumer has not consumed so much of energy warranting payment of Rs.8479/- covered by the impugned bill. It is further to be noted that the definite case of complainant/consumer is that the meter is defective and that the 1st opposite party replaced the aforesaid meter by a defect free meter. At any rate Forum below has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and cancelled the impugned bill for Rs.8479/-. Admittedly the aforesaid amount was deposited by the complainant. So the complainant/consumer is entitled to get that amount refunded. Thereby the Forum below directed the opposite party/KSEB to adjust the amount of Rs.8074/- towards future energy bills. So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below does not warrant any interference. The present appeal deserves dismissal. Hence we do so. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 20th January 2005 passed by the CDRF, Kasargod in OP.247/04 is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps | 
