KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 156/07 JUDGMENT DATED: 21.8.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.366/04 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. Secretary, K.S.E.B., : APPELLANT Trivandrum. 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, K.S.E.B., Kottayam. (By Adv.S.Balachandran) Vs. C.C.Antony, : RESPONDENT S/o C.K.Chacko, Proprietor, M/s Omega Rubber Industries, Industrial Estate, Umayanalloor, Kollam. (Bby Adv.Dinesh Sajan.K) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 25.1.07 in OP.366/04 the CDRF, Kollam has directed the opposite parties to cancel Ext.P1 bill for Rs.31564/- and to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- along with cost of Rs.1000/-. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for interference of this Commission as to the legality and sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum alleging that he was issued with a bill for Rs.31564/- by the opposite parties without any basis. He has stated before the Forum that consequent to the filing of a complaint as OP.533/03 and as he was given a favourable order the opposite parties are trying to wreak vengeance on him by issuing the impugned bill. It is also stated by him that the alleged sluggishness of the meter is only a ruse to penalize him for having filed a case against the opposite parties and that the impugned bill is also not liable to be paid by him. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint was filed praying for directions to quash the bill marked as Ext.P1 and to pay compensation and cost to the complainant. 3. Resisting the complaint opposite party filed a version contending that the Anti Power Theft Squad(APTS) had inspected the premises of the complainant on 11.4.03 and found that the meter installed in the premises was sluggish and that the said meter was replaced on 1.9.03 and taking the average of the subsequent months a bill issued for Rs.31564/- as per the existing rules and hence the complainant was liable to pay said amount to the opposite parties. It was also submitted that the amount already paid by the complainant was deducted in the impugned bill and only the remaining charges were directed to be paid by the complainant. It is the further case of the opposite parties that if the complainant had any allegation regarding the accuracy of the changed meter, he could have taken steps to test the meter by the Electrical Inspector at his cost and request. The opposite parties also submitted that there was a site mahasar prepared by them, a copy which was handed over to the consumer/complainant at the time of inspection by the APTS. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P9. ON the side of the opposite parties 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. 5. Heard Both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below directing the opposite parties to cancel the impugned bill and to pay compensation and cost is illegal, unsustainable and hence to be set aside. It is his very case that the bill was issued based on the conclusion that the earlier meter that was existing in the premises of the complainant on 1.4.03 was found to be sluggish(slow running) and it was consequent to such a finding that a bill was issued subsequent to the changing of the meter on 1.9.03. He had also attacked the directions of the Forum below to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-, on the ground that when there was no illegality in issuing a bill based on the average consumption subsequent to the changing of the meter, it was unjust and unfair for the complainant to approach the Forum with the grievances that the opposite party had committed deficiency of service. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the fact that if the complainant had any complaints regarding the issue of the bill, he could have approached the appellate authority rather than filing a complaint before the Consumer forum. It is also his case that the order passed by the Members is not proper and as the President has not passed an order and hence the same is liable to be set aside. Thus advancing the contentions aforesaid the learned counsel argued for allowing the appeal thereby dismissing the complaint in toto. 7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and argued before us that the Forum has appreciated all the evidence before it. He has advanced the contention that the order passed by the Members is sustainable and that one of the Members was the Presiding Member having the powers of the President and in such a situation the order is perfectly legal. He has also advanced the contention that the Forum has very carefully appreciated all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed the order fastening liability of compensation and cost on the erring/delinquent employees apart from canceling the impugned bill. He has argued before us that the opposite parties have committed great deficiency in service and in fact the Forum ought to have allowed a still further amount as compensation and canvassed for the position that the order is liable to be upheld and the appeal dismissed with cost. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and also on perusing the records we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that there was an earlier OP by the complainant as OP533/03 and an order was passed in favour of the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that the bill was issued on 31.8.04 for Rs.31564/- by the opposite parties contending that it is the actual charges for the consumption for 6 months from 1.4.03 on which date it was found that the meter installed in the premises was sluggish. It is also noted that the meter was replaced only on 1.9.03 though the opposite parties would say that they found the meter to be sluggish on 1.4.03. It is also the admitted fact that the meter was replaced on 1.9.03 and that the opposite parties have calculated the charges for 6 months from 11/2003 onwards. The Forum has considered these aspects in detail and it is based on such findings and conclusions that they have cancelled the bill for Rs.31564/-. However we find that the complainant has not raised any objection to the finding of the APTS of the opposite parties that the meter was sluggish. Ext.D1 clearly says that on caliberation the meter is found sluggish and replaced it with a static meter. From the above we find that the meter was sluggish but the opposite parties have taken inordinate delay of 5 months to change the meter. However it is also found they have replaced the meter on 1.9.03. In such a circumstance we are of the opinion that the opposite parties/appellants could charge for only 5 months from 1.4.03 to 31.8.03. They ought to have taken the average consumption of the succeeding 3 months from 9/03 to 11/03. Instead of taking the average for the succeeding 3 months immediately after replacement of the meter the opposite parties have taken a different period during which the consumption was on a high side which is not proper. If the average of the previous 3 months cannot be taken the regulation says that the average of the succeeding 3 months can be considered for calculation of average charges during the previous period in which the meter was not working properly. In the instant case it is to be found that the meter was not working properly from 1.4.03 to 31.8.03 and the meter was replaced on 1.9.03. In such a circumstance the opposite parties are entitled to charge only for 5 months at the average consumption for 3 months after the replacement on 1.9.03. The bill issued for Rs.31564/- is quashed by the Forum below and we also agree with the same. But in the facts and circumstances of the case the opposite parties/appellants are entitled to collect the charges for 5 months from 1.4.03 to 31.8.03 after deducting the charges already paid by the complainant during the above months. The appellants are also not entitled to collect any interest or penal charges for the above said period apart from collecting the usual electricity duty payable by the complainant. The Forum below has ordered Rs.3000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. But it is found that the complainant is liable to pay the difference in charges for the above said 5 months. We have made it clear that the complainant is not liable to pay any penal charges or interest for the above said amount and hence the compensation awarded is not justifiable. We set aside that part of the order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.3000/-. However the complainant is entitled to get cost of Rs.1000/- which is to be paid by the opposite party. We also make it clear that the higher officials of the opposite parties have to conduct enquiries regarding the issue of improper and illegal bills to the consumers and if it is found that the said bills are issued without observing the legal principles and the rules prevalent in the Electricity Board. The delinquent officials should be dealt with in a serious manner be as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charansingh vs. Heeling attach hospital and others(2000 SC CTJ 721 CP) has held that even in the absence of loss or damage compensation can be awarded to improve the quality of the service provider. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above. Thereby the appellants/opposite parties are entitled to issue a fresh bill for 5 months taking the average consumption for the 3 months immediately after replacement of the meter on 1.9.03. Appellants are also liable to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant. However in the nature and circumstances of the present appeal parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER ps | 
