KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

          APPEAL  NO:384/2009

                              JUDGMENT DATED:07..04..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

1.Secretary, KSEB,

  Vydhudhi Bhavan, Pattom,

  Thiruvananthapuram.

2.Assistant Executive Engineer,

  KSEB, Electrical Sub Division, No:1,                          : APPELLANTS

  Vydhudhi Bhavan, Thodupuzha.

3.Assistant Engineer, KSEB,

  Electrical Major Section (1)

  Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: Sri.S.Balachandran)

          Vs.

Goerge Joseph,

Nedumpara House,                                                           : RESPONDENT

Thodupuzha.P.O, Idukki District.

(By Adv: Sri.Alia Cheriyan)

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC:146/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The bill issued by the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.27,057/- stands cancelled.  The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost.

2. The case of the complainant is that in the first bill issued to him after getting electric connection the amount noted is Rs.27,057/-.  The bill is dated:15/7/2006.  According to the complainant he occupied the newly constructed house only in June 2006.  The subsequent bill issued on 15/8/2006. It is only for the sum of Rs.1180/-.  According to him the initial reading of the meter is wrongly noted as 14.  According to him it should have been a figure in between 4500 and 5000.  Hence the complaint.

3. According to the opposite parties, the initial reading was 14 in the meter on 25/5/2006and the subsequent reading on 5/7/2006 was 4904.  They have denied the allegation that the initial reading was wrongly noted. 

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.P1 to P6 and R1 and R2.

5. The Forum has noted the vast difference in the consumption of electrical energy in the subsequent bill.  Ext.R1 the true extract of the register giving details of energy meters fixed in various places was produced by the opposite parties to substantiate the contention

that the initial reading of the meter of the complainant’s residence was 14.  The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence or attempted to find out the reason for the vast difference in the energy consumption.  The Forum has also noted that in Ext.R2 the meter reading register also there are discrepancies.  It is also noted that the first bill amount comes to nearly 25 times the consumption of the subsequent period.  It is also noted that the case of the complainant that no consumer card was issued to him wherein the initial reading is written has not been controverted.  The Forum has noted on examination of Ext.R1 that with respect to certain meters installed no initial reading is written.  It appears that the opposite parties only tried to find out the reason for the hiked bill instead of investigating into the incident as such.  It appears that the opposite parties have not made any attempt to enquire into or  investigate into the matter.

6. In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

In the result the appeal is dismissed in-limine.

Office will forward the copy of the order to the Forum urgently along with LCR.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VL.