KERALASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 265/04 JUDGMENT DATED : 28/01/09 PRESENT:- SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, KSEB, Pattom, Vydyudhi Bhavan, Trivandrum. 2. The Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, : APPELLANTS Nattakam. 3. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Pallam. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs C.S.Abdul Karim,Chaiprambil, Erattupetta, Managing Partner, Kottayam Rubber Mills, Moolavattom, Kottayam : RESPONDENT JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 00000.This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Kottayam in the file of OP 240/03 dated 6/2/04. The opposite party is the appellant. The brief of the case is that the complainant is running a Mill in the name and style M/s.Kottayam Rubber Mills which he had purchased from a person named Joseph in the year 1984. The name of the Mill at the time was BOSCO Rubber Mills. He is a consumer of the opposite party having Consumer No.977. According to the complainant he is not a defaulter of energy charges and paying the bills. But an additional bill was issued to him by the 2nd opposite party on 25/8/03 for an amount of Rs.34,455/- with demand to remit the amount on or before 2/9/2003. As per the bill the said amount was towards the charge for light meter from 6/01 to 11/02. the petitioner stated that the meter was sealed and was under the control of the opposite parties and in such and every month the employees of the opposite parties was visiting the premises and bill was issued based on the monthly readings. The issuance of the said additional bill is baseless without any bonafides and is against natural justice and thus amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. According to the complainant the mill is running only for the livelihood of the petitioner as a means of self employment. Hence this complaint is filed for getting the additional bill cancelled and prayed for cost and compensation. The 3rd opposite party filed the version for himself and for and on behalf of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties . It contended that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not a consumer as defined in Sec.2 (1) (d) (I I) of the Consumer Protection Act. He is a consumer of LT IV industrial tariff. The electrical energy was availed for running a profit making concern and in the result he is not a consumer under CP Act. The light meter provided in the premises of the petitioner was faulty from 6/01on wards. Though the power meter recorded consumption, no consumption was recorded in the light meter. The faulty light meter was changed on 25/11/2002 and the meter recorded 1625 units from 12/02 to 2/03. This shows the average consumption of the petitioner was 542 units per month. The opposite parties hence for contended the impugned bill is nothing on a short assessment bill for a period in which the light meter was faulty. The opposite parties have acted as per rules prevalent in the Board and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence they contended that non of the reliefs sought for in the petition can be allowed and they prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them and also prayed to direct the petitioner to remit the bill amount with interest thereon. 2. The Forum below answered accordingly. The Forum below found that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the oppositre parties and ordered to cancel the impugned bill ext.A1 for Rs.34,455 and also ordered to pay Rs.500/- to the petitioner as cost of the proceedings. The cost can be paid either directly or can be adjusted in the future bill. From the part of the complainant Ext.A1 and A2 were marked. No evidence adduced on the part of the opposite parties. the opposite party preferred this appeal from the above finding the additional bill.. The counsel for the appellant is present and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant. The appellant filed I.A No.67/09 in this appeal. This IA filed by the appellant in the appeal for accept a document as an additional evidence in this appeal. Peruse these documents by this Commission. It is only a Photostat copy. It is not admiserable according to the provisions of the evidence Act and Consumer Protection Act. It is not attested by anybody. In the circumstances this IA is dismissed. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that this petition is not maintainable as per the provisions of the CP Act. The complainant has not produce any documents supporting his case. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Forum below has not given any opportunity to adduce the evidence from the part of the appellant. He again submitted that the meter is faulty that is the reason for such an impugned bill was issued to the complainant. It is illegal and not according to the Electricity Act. But this Commission find that no sufficient evidence was adduced both the complainant and the appellant in the Forum below. The counsel for the appellant further submitted that the case shall be remanded to the lower Forum for fresh disposal after given proper opportunities to the appellant for adduce oral and documental evidence. This Commission think that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the evidence and law. It is fit case to remand back in the Forum below for the fresh disposal. In the result this appeal is allowed and setting aside the order passed by the Forum below and remanded the case back to the Forum below for fresh disposal after giving proper opportunities to both complainant and opposite parties to adduce their oral and documental evidence. The points are answered accordingly. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Pk
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
