KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 412/2005

JUDGMENT DATED:  05-11-2009

PRESENT:

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                              :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR                  :  MEMBER

1.      The Kerala State Electricity Board,                   :  APPELLANTS

          Represented by its Secretary,                

          Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.      Elizabathkurian,

Asst. Ex. Engineer,

          Electrical Sub Division, Ettumanoor.

3.      The Asst. Engineer,

          Electrical Section, Ettumanoor.

4.      The Sub Engineer,

          Electricity Office, Athirampuzha.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair, Counsel)

                              Vs

K.G. Chandra Bose,                                 :  RESPONDENT

Kalapurackal Rubber Industries,

Development Plot,

Athirampuzha, Ettumanoor.

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR :  MEMBER

        By the order dated 11-02-2005 in OP 177/04 the CDRF, Kottayam has directed the opposite parties to cancel Ext.A1 bill and pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and costs of Rs. 750/-.  The opposite parties are also under directions to refund the amount paid by the complainant under Ext.A1 bill.  It is against there directions that the opposite parties have come up in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.

          2.      The complainant’s case before the Forum is that he is running a mat manufacturing unit at Development Plot, Athirampuzha solely for earning his livelyood.  He has been given a connection by the opposite parties under Consumer No. 5890 and that on 26-08-2003 at 03.30 pm the opposite parties 2 to 4 conducted an inspection in the unit and that on the next day a bill  for Rs. 56,347/- was issued to him.  According to the complainant the supply was also disconnected and the bill was to be paid on or before 27-08-203 itself.  The complainant’s further case is that though he had remitted the amount, the supply was not restored immediately and it was only on a subsequent date that the supply was restored.  Alleging deficiency of service in issuing the bill and disconnecting the service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to set aside the penal bill and for the refund of the amount paid by him on the basis of the bill.

3.      Resisting the complaint the opposite parties filed version wherein it was contended that the complainant was not a consumer as the unit was run for earning profit and also that on inspection it was found that one phase of the 3 phase meter was not recording the consumption.  Further case of the opposite parties is that a site mahazar was prepared and the complainant was asked to install a CT meter box for providing the CTs and for the said purpose and for facilitating the shifting of the meter the fuse units of the transformer were removed with mutual consent and the fuses were entrusted with the petitioner himself.  The opposite parties submitted that there was no disconnection and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  It is also their case that the bill issued was only for the period of 6 months and the complainant is directed to pay the said amount and the complainant had remitted the same without any objection.

          4.      The evidence consisted of the affidavits filed by the complainant and the second opposite party.  Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

          5.      The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is perse illegal and unsustainable. It is his very case that in a case where one phase of the meter is not recording the current consumption the course open to the opposite parties/appellants is to issue a bill for the escaped consumption for 6 months.  He has also submitted before us that there was no disconnection and that only the fuses were removed from the transformer inorder to facilitate the complainant for fixing the CT meter box.  The learned Counsel has also advanced the contention that the bill was issued as per Clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply and in the instant case as the meter was not recording the correct consumption and as soon as it was found out the bill was issued taking 1/2 of the recorded consumption as only 2/3 consumption was recorded and 1/3 was not recording the consumption.  It is also argued by him that the complainant also had no case that the 3 phases of the meter were working and that he himself has signed the site mahazar produced as Ext.A4/B1.  Thus the learned Counsel argued for allowing the appeal thereby dismissing the complaint in toto.

6.      On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants and on perusing the records produced by him, we find that an inspection by the opposite parties was conducted on 26-08-2003 and that in the site mahazar it is recorded that one phase was not recording the consumption.  It is also found that the meter was replaced after two days.  The bill is issued taking ½ of the recorded consumption and the same is calculated for a period of 6 months.  The complainant has no case that the meter was working properly and that the opposite parties have not prepared any site maahzar or that he was not a party to the site mahazar.  The only case that is raised by the complainant is that even after remittance of the bill amount he was not given reconnection.  The opposite parties argued that there was no disconnection and only the fuse units were taken from the transformer inorder to facilitate the complainant to install the CT meter box which he is liable to do as per clause 7(c) of the Conditions of Supply.  No contra evidence is forthcoming to the said statement of the opposite parties/appellants and that there is also evidence to show that there was no connection to the unit and the supply was disconnected by the opposite parties.  We are of the view that in a case where one phase is not working it is permitted that the opposite parties can issue a bill for a previous period during which the consumption was not recording in one phase.  However, both parties have not adduced any evidence to show that the meter was not recording the current consumption for how many months.  In such a situation the demand that can be made is for 6 months which the appellants/opposite parties have done.  We do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing a bill when it is found that one phase of the 3 phase meter was not recording the consumption.

          7.      The Forum below has cancelled the bill issued by the opposite parties.  The Forum has also directed to refund the money paid by the complainant with compensation and costs.  In the circumstances stated supra, we find that the order of the Forum below cannot be sustained.  We set aside the order of the Forum below directing the opposite parties to cancel the bill, to refund the amount, to pay compensation and to pay costs.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 11-02-2005 in OP 177/04 of CDRF, Kottayam is set aside.  In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                                                       S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR :  MEMBER

                                      M.V. VISWANATHAN   :JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sr.