KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO:468/2009                     

                         JUDGMENT DATED:30..12..2010

PRESENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN    : MEMBER

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                      : MEMBER

1.      The Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydyhthi Bhavan, Pattom,

TVPM, R/by its Secretary.

2.      The Assistant Engineer,

KSEB, Electrical Section,               : APPELLANTS

Ettumanoor, Kottayam.

3.      The Executive Engineer,

Electrical Division,

Ettumanoor, Kottayam.

(By Adv.Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

          Vs.

Mr. Jossy Thomas,

S/o Uthuppu Thomas,

Velliaparambil House,                     : RESPONDENT

Kuravilangadu.P.O, Kottayam.

(By Adv.Sri.Sandeep.T. George)

JUDGMENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.16/08 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing short assessment bill dated:13/2/2008 for Rs.65,877/-.   The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the deficiency of service.  They contended that the impugned bill dated:13/2/2008 for Rs.65,877/- was issued by way of short assessment bill for the period from November 2004 to July 2005 and the said bill was issued based on average consumption of energy by the complainant/consumer.  It was also contended that the average consumption was fixed by taking the readings recorded by the meter which was replaced on 22/7/2005. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

2.      Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4 documents were marked from the side of the parties to the complaint in CC.16/08.  On the basis of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:30/6/2009 cancelling the impugned bill dated:13/2/2008.  The opposite party/KSEB was also ordered to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for deficiency of service with cost of Rs.1000/-.  Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties.

3.      We heard both sides.  Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the Memorandum of the present appeal.  He argued for the position that the impugned short assessment bill was issued based on the readings recorded by the meter which was replaced on 22/7/2005 and thereby fixed the average consumption at 1790 units.  Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

4.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  It is also submitted that there occurred failure on the part of the opposite parties in replacing the defective meter and that the defective meter was replaced after the lapse of about 8 months.  It is also submitted that the opposite party/KSEB was bound to replace the defective meter within one month.  Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal and to uphold the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

5.      There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant has been conducting a Petrol Pump at Ettumanur and for running the aforesaid petrol pump he has been consuming electrical energy.  It is the definite case of the respondent/complainant that he has been remitting the amounts covered by the energy bills regularly and promptly and there was no default on his part in remitting the amounts covered by energy bills.  Thus, the respondent/complainant challenged the correctness of the impugned short assessment bill dated:13/2/2008.  It is admitted by the appellants/opposite parties that they collected the electricity charges from the respondent/complainant by fixing the average consumption at 300 units.  The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties is not in a position to say as to how the average consumption was fixed at 300 units and the resultant energy bills were issued.  It is to be noted that there is no provision in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy to fix the average consumption more than one time.  Once the appellants/opposite parties assessed the average consumption at 300 units and based on that average consumption, energy bills have been issued.  Then it is not possible for the appellants/opposite parties to issue another short assessment bill based on average consumption taken on the basis of the readings recorded by the new energy meter which was replaced only on 22/7/2005.

6.      There is no dispute that the appellants/opposite parties were bound to replace the defective meter within one month of detection of the faulty nature of the energy meter.  In the present case the meter became faulty in November 2004.  This fact regarding faulty nature of the energy meter was known to the appellants/opposite parties during November 2004 itself.  But the appellants/opposite parties failed to replace the defective meter immediately; but they took 8 months time to replace the defective meter.  No acceptable reason or explanation is forthcoming from the side of the appellants/opposite parties for the delay in replacing the defective meter immediately.  If that be so, the inaction on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in replacing the defective meter would amount to deficiency of service.  

7.      The appellants/opposite parties have relied on  meter reading register and B4 site mehazar.  It is to be noted that B2 is only copy of a portion of the meter reading register and B4 is copy of site mehazar.  But those documents have not been proved by examining the concerned officials of KSEB. The appellants/opposite parties could not give any reasonable explanation regarding the readings recorded in the meter reading register.  The person who recorded the meter reading register or who maintained the said register has not been examined before the Forum below.  No reasonable explanation is also forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties for issuing energy bills for the period from November 2004 to July 2005 by taking the average consumption at 300 units.  Thus, in all respects the appellants/opposite parties failed to prove their case that the impugned short assessment bill dated:13/2/2008 was issued as per the provisions of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.  It is to be noted that the appellants/opposite parties are legally bound to follow the provisions of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.  Unfortunately, in the present case the appellants/opposite parties failed to follow the provisions of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.  Thus, the Forum below is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order cancelling the short assessment bill dated:13/2/2008 for Rs.65,877/-.  The Forum below has taken a lenient view in awarding compensation for the deficiency of service.  Thus, in all respects the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be upheld.  Hence we do so.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order dated:30/6/2009 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC.16/08 is confirmed.  As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

M.V. VISWANATHAN           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VL.