KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.1050/04 JUDGMENT DATED.29.5.08 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER 1. The Secretary, KSEB Pattom, Trivandrum. 2. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, KSEB, Ettumanoor. -- APPELLANTS 3. The Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Kuruppanthara. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. George John, Kandanattil, Kothanalloor.P.O, -- RESPONDENT Kottayam. (By Adv.Muraleedharan.B) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP.158/04. The Forum has set aside the bill issued by the appellant and directed to issue fresh demand notice fixing the average consumption on the basis of the readings taken during 10/97 and 4/99 and also directed to pay a cost of Rs.500/-. The dispute is with respect to the implementation of the order in OP. 15/03 of the Forum. The complainant had approach the Forum vide OP.15/03 disputing additional bill for Rs.5092/- alleging that the same is the result of readings taken in the new meter. According to the complainant, he was remitting electricity charges at the rate of Rs.31/- per month ie; for 40 units on the basis of PIC. Subsequently, the opposite parties changed the meter on 12.11.2000 without any reason and on the basis of the readings in the new meter the additional bill was issued. The Forum in the order in OP.15/03 found that ‘Clause 31 C’ of the Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy will not apply to the facts of the case as the new meter was installed without finding that the old meter is faulty. Hence, the Forum directed that the readings of the old meter alone should be taken for issuing the bill for the period from 4/99 to 12/2000. Ext.B4 is the copy of the meter reading register wherein there are readings of 10/96, 10/97, 4/99, 8/99 and 12/2000. The appellants took the average meter readings from 4/99 to 12/2000 and issued the bill. The Forum, on the other hand directed that the readings on 10/97 and 4/99 should be taken and the average reading calculated. But, we find that the Forum has not mentioned any reason for opting for the reading on 10/97. The period to be billed is from 4/99 to 12/2000 (inclusive). Hence, we find that the order of the Forum cannot be sustained. We find that Ext. B 2 calculation statement is not exactly correct instead of adding 108 units after completing the rotation of 10000 units the appellant has added 281.80 and divided the figure by 19 for the months and arrived at 211 units per month. The difference of units from 4/99 to 12/2000 is 3835units. The same has to be divided by 20 months and the same work out to 191.75 units. Hence we find that the calculation is liable to be modified. The appellant is directed to issue fresh bill taking the average consumption as 191.75 units for the period from 4/99 to 12/2000. The direction to pay cost is set aside. The appellant will be at liberty to issue fresh bill. The rest of the directions contained in the order of the Forum regarding interest and surcharge is sustained. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER s/L
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
