KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 59/2007 JUDGMENT DATED. 07-09-2010 PRESENT:- SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER APPELLANTS 1. KSEB, Vaikom, Rep. by its Asst. Exe. Engineer. 2. KSEB, Vaikom, Rep. by its Exe. Engineer. 3. KSEB, Trivandrum, Rep. by its Secretary. (Rep. by Adv. Sri V.S. Vineeth Kumar.) Vs RESPONDENT Devakiyamma, W/o Kesavan Nair, Vettikattu Thekkethil, Vaikkaprayar P.O, Udayanapuram,Vaikom. JUDGMENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 6.10.2006 in C.C. 226/05 of CDRF, Kottayam whereby the Forum below cancelled the disputed bill dated 15.11.2004 for Rs. 3,487/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that she is a domestic consumer of the opposite parties and was remitting electricity charges regularly and is not using even the minimum units of energy bimonthly. On 15.11.2004 she received a bill for Rs. 3487/- stating that she had consumed 860 units of energy. But the period was not mentioned in the bill. Though the complainant requested to cancel the said bill and asked to permit her to remit the minimum charge of Rs. 85/- for that bill period, the first opposite party refused to accept the bill amount of Rs. 85/- for the month of September, 2005 stating that the amount of Rs. 3,487/- was pending as arrears against the petitioner and without remitting that amount they will not accept the succeeding bill amounts. The complainant made a complaint before the second opposite party also. But no action has taken. Hence been taken hence alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, she filed complaint before the Forum praying for a direction to cancel the impugned bill. 3. The opposite parties filed version and contended that the disputed bill was issued for the period from 15.9.2004 to 15.11.2004 based on the recorded consumption of 860 units and on investigation, it was revealed that the increase in recorded consumption of 860/- units was due to earth leakage at the installation of the premises of the complainant and hence she is liable to pay the cost of energy transmitted through the meter and this fact was intimated to the complainant in writing and directed to remit the disputed bill on or before 16.8.2005. But she did not remit the same. As this amount was not remitted the bill amount for 9/05 was not accepted. Contending that there was no deficiency of service on their part, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. There was no representation for the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the order of the Forum below in canceling the bill issued by the opposite parties is illegal and unsustainable. He submitted before us that the actual connected load of the complainant was 240 Watts and the disputed bill for Rs. 3,487/- was issued for the period from 15.09.2004 to 15.11.2004 based on the recorded consumption of 860 units in the meter. On investigation of the complaint of the complainant it was revealed that the increase in recorded consumption was due to leakage at the installation of premises of the complainant and hence she is liable to pay the cost of energy transmitted through the meter. So the complainant was intimated in writing that the disputed bill is to be remitted on or before 16.08.2005. But she did not remit the same. Hence the bill amount for 9/05 was not accepted. The statement of the complainant that she had made a complaint before the second opposite party is false and as the demanded amount is for recorded consumption of energy in the meter, there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. Thus he prayed for allowing the appeal. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the records we find that the complainant was remitting her current charges @ Rs. 85/- bimonthly and the opposite parties had no case that she had a connected load more than that was allotted to her. It is noted that the bill for Rs. 3,487/- was issued for a period of 2 months only and consumption recorded was 860 units. The learned counsel for appellant would argue that the same was due to Earth leakage at the installation of the complainant and hence the respondent/complainant was liable to pay the impugned bill. It is also stated that the opposite parties had conducted an investigation on receipt of the complaint from the complainant and the leakage was found out in the said investigation. But it is surprising to note that no such investigation report is seen filed by the appellants to substantiate their case that there was leakage in the premises of the complainant. It is also noted that even an affidavit of the party who conducted the investigation had not been filed before the Forum below. In the said circumstances we are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellants that the bill was issued consequent to the finding that there was Earth leakage in the premises and hence the consumption had gone high. It is observed that the Forum below had appreciated the above said facts in its correct perspective and has passed the order. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Forum below. The appeal is liable to be dismissed, and we do so accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order to costs. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ST | 
