KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 284/08 ORDER DATED13.11..08: PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER - KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavanam,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, : APPELLANTS Rep. By the Secretary. - The Asst.Executive Engineer,
KSEB, Kuravilangad, Kottayam. - The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB, Kaduthuruthi, Kottayam. (By Adv.V.S.Vineeth Kumar) Biju Joseph, :RESPONDENT “Kalpakasseril”, Kallara South.P.O., Kottayam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.231/06 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The Forum below has cancelled the impugned bill for the period from 1/03 to 5/05. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he was remitting current charges at the rate of Rs.385/- per month for the faulty period. Subsequently after replacing of the meter after 2 ½ years the meter reading subsequent to the installation of the new meter for three months was taken and the bill was issued for the period from 1/2003 to 5/05 relying on Section 33 (2) of Conditions of Supply 2005. As per Section 33(2) it is also provided that if the Board is unable to raise the bill on meter reading due to non recording or malfunctioning it shall issue the bill based on the previous six months average consumption and in such cases the meter shall be replaced within one month. It is also provided that if the average consumption for the previous six months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or for any other reason, the consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding three months after replacement of the meter. The appellant has relied on the second limb Regulation 33(2). The Forum has found that the first part of the Regulation 33(2) has already been applied and the consumer was remitting current charges on the basis of the previous consumption. Hence the second assessment amounts to double assessment for the same period. We find that there is no justification for not replacing the meter for about 2 ½ years. In the circumstance we find no merit in the appeal filed and there is no scope for interference. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
