KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACADU  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                  APPEAL  NO:469/2009

      JUDGMENT DATED: 06-12-2010

  PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU               : PRESIDENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                  : MEMBER

1.      The Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,

TVPM R/by its Secretary.

2.      The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Erattupettah, Kottayam.                            : APPELLANTS

3.      The Deputy Chief Engineer,

Electrical Circle Office,

Pala, Kottayam.

(By Adv.Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

          Vs.

Mr.K.H.Salim,

Kunthiparambil, Erattupetta,                     : RESPONDENT

Kottayam.

(By Adv.Sri.S.Reghukumar)

                                                JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

The order dated:30/6/2009 of CDRF, Kottayam in CC.142/06 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are aggrieved by the directions to cancel the bill dated:1/8/2006 for an amount of Rs.67,278/-.

2.      It is the case of the complainant that he is conducting a Tourist Home in order to earn livelihood and that he had taken an electricity connection from the opposite party vide consumer No.11999 and that his average consumption was around 300 units for 2 months and the amount would come to Rs.3,000/-.  It is also his case that he was issued with a bill for Rs.67,278/- without any rhyme and reason and on receiving the exorbitant bill he filed complaints to the 2^nd opposite party, disputing the bill.  Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the disputed bill along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/-.

3.      Resisting the allegations in the complaint, the opposite parties filed version contending that the petition was not maintainable and that the bill issued on 1/8/2006 was based on the readings taken from the meter by the meter reader and that the same was issued for 7480 units, the complainant had consumed for two months, submitting that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4.      The evidence consisted of the affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A7 documents on the side of the complainant.  On the side of the opposite parties Ext.B1 to B4 were marked.

5.      Heard both sides.

6.      The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued the case based on the contentions taken in the version as well as the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  It is his very case that the bill dated:1/8/2006 was issued for the consumption of 7480 units recorded in the meter.  It was also submitted that on receipt of the complaint, the Assistant Engineer concerned inspected the premises and found that the meter was working properly.  It was also submitted that the complainant had been remitting the charges based on the readings recorded in the same meter during the previous period and the subsequent period and there was nothing to doubt regarding the consumption made during the period for which the disputed bill was issued.  The learned counsel had submitted before us that the complaint was not maintainable as the consumption was for commercial purpose and if the complainant had any doubt regarding the correctness of the meter he could have taken steps to get the meter tested by the electrical inspector by remitting the test fees.  Advancing the contention that the opposite parties/appellants were correct in issuing the bill he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.      Supporting the findings and conclusions of the Forum below the learned counsel for the respondent submitted before us that as soon as the complainant got the bill for Rs.67,278/- he had made an application to the 2^nd opposite party disputing the correctness of the consumption and the opposite party was duty bound to ascertain how such a spurt in consumption had occurred.  It is argued by him that without doing anything, the opposite parties reiterated their stand regarding the consumption and the issuance of the bill.  He has also submitted that the previous bills and the subsequent bills would show that the bill issued during the disputed period was without any bonafides and he prayed for dismissing the appeal with compensatory cost.

 8.     On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, the respondent had also on perusing records, we find that it is the admitted case of all the parties that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties and that he was regularly paying bimonthly charges to the opposite parties.   It is also seen that the complainant had a case that the bill issued on 1/8/2006 was exorbitant and that he did not consume 7480 units as argued by the opposite parties.  On a perusal of Ext.B2 the copy of the meter reading register we also find that for the period from 6/06 and 7/06 the consumption shown is 7480 units.  During the previous period we find that the bimonthly consumption rates from 305 units to 302 units and during the subsequent periods the consumption has gone down to the extent of 29 units for 2 months.  We find that only during the period of 6/06 to 7/06, the consumption had gone as high as 7480 which means that there was an average consumption of 125 units per day which is highly improbable.  We find that as soon as the complainant received the said bill he has filed a complaint which is marked as Ext.A1.  On a perusal of Ext.A1 the complainant has submitted that he did not consume electricity on a higher side or that he had not misused energy for any purpose.  It is also seen that the complainant has requested the Deputy Chief Engineer, the 3^rd opposite party to enquire and take appropriate steps in the matter.  But it is noted that though such a petition was given to the 3^rd opposite party, no effective steps were seen taken by the opposite parties to enquire into the matter and convince the complainant regarding the usage of electricity on such a higher side.  Apart from the preparation of a site mehazar by a Sub Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party no enquiry was conducted as to the said spurt in consumption.  It is also found that only during 6/06 and 7/06 such a hike was there and when the complainant disputed the consumption it was the bounden duty of the opposite parties to make a thorough enquiry rather than upholding the fact that there was no defect in the meter.  We find that imposing of such a high amount on the complainant is unjust, improper and against natural justice.

9.      The Forum below had cancelled the entire bill on the finding that there is a limit for arbitrariness and the complaint was not properly investigated.  Though we agree with the said findings of the Forum below we are unable to uphold the cancellation of the whole bill and if the same is allowed, the complainant gets a chance for not remitting any amount for the consumption made during the months of 6/06 and 7/06.  To secure the ends of justice we feel that the opposite parties are entitled to realize charges for the average consumption recorded in the meter for the previous 6 months.  The complainant is liable to pay the said amount within two weeks from the date of issue of the bill failing which the opposite parties are at liberty to realise the same with interest and other charges as per rules.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification noted above, thereby the opposite parties are entitled to issue a bill for 2 months (6/06 and 7/06) as per the average consumption for previous six months and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount within two weeks from the date of issue of the said bill failing which the opposite parties are entitled to proceed against the complainant/respondent as per rules.  In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

VL.