KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.636/09
JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
1. The Asst.Engineer
KSEB Sub Section,
Vattiyoorkavu,
Thiruvananthapuram -- APPELLANTS
2. The Secretary, KSEB
Vydhyuthi Bhavan
Pattom, Trivandrum.
(By Adv.S.Balachandran)
Vs.
1. Consumer Vigilance Centre,
Sree Kovil, Kodunganoor P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. M.Vanaja Kumari, -- RESPONDENTS
W/0 R.Mdhu kumar
Meena Cottage, Karipa,
Malayinkizhu,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.Sreevaraham N.G.Mahesh)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP.160/03 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The bill issued for a sum of Rs.5,175/- stands quashed. The appellants are under orders to confine the above bill for energy charges for 152 units and to adjust the amounts remitted accordingly and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the readings in the impugned bill is excessive on comparison with the previous and subsequent bills. The same was on account of the defective meter. The definite case of the complainant is that he had applied for examining the meter on 31/1/03 and remitted the required fee. Thereafter, the meter was removed for testing on 15.2.03. thereafter The test report was not furnished and the complainant was not intimated the result of the testing. The complainant was compelled to remit the amount mentioned in the impugned bill. Although, it was told that on receiving the test report, the bill shall be revised, nothing was done. It is also stated that there is only one STD both and a barber shop in the premises.
3. The opposite parties have filed version admitting the fact that the bill amounts prior to the removal of the meter for testing and subsequently after another meter was installed the meter readings are low compared to the reading mentioned in the impugned bill. It is also contended that there is also a beauty parlor functioning in the premises. It is also contended that in the meter testing report, it is mentioned that the meter is slow in full load.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective sides and Exts.P1 to P13.
5. The counsel for the appellant has contended that none of the tenants of the complainants were examined and that it is only they who can testify as to the use of energy. It was also contended that in view of the test report, the meter running slow on full load will only help the consumer. A copy of the meter testing report was produced before this Commission. There is no explanation as to why the same was not produced before the Forum. Further, no evidence was adduced to establish that there are 3 establishments in the premises as contended by the opposite parties. Evidently, there is a spurt in consumption as noted in the impugned bill. The reading mentioned is 851 units, whereas the average of the previous and subsequent bills would work out only 150 units as per the calculation done by the Forum. We find that there is spurt and the same stands not explained. In the absence of the production of the test report before the Forum, the complainant was not in a position to dispute the correctness of the test report issued by the particular unit of the KSEB. Evidently, the meter involved had defects.
6. In the circumstances, especially in view of the fact that after the installation of the new meter the readings are much lower compared than the readings in the impugned bill we find that the case of the complainant appears genuine.
7. In the circumstances, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for. The appeal is dismissed.
The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
