KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL 896/2004 JUDGMENT DATED :2.5.09 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.71/01 PRESENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Asst.Exe.Engineer, : APPELLANTS Electrical Major Section, KSEB, Thengane, Perumpanachi.P.O., Changanachery. 2. The Ex.Engineer, Electrical Major Sec., KSEB, changanachery. 3. The Secretary, KSEB, Trivandrum. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. K.J.Mathew, Kurusumkalparambil, : RESPONDENT Fathimapuram.P.O., The Director, Hyrenge rubber Compounds, (P) Ltd. Industrial Nagar, Changanachery. (By Adv.R.Lekshmana Iyer) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 10.8.04 in OP.71/01 the CDRF, Kottayam has directed the opposite parties to cancel Ext.A37 additional bill for Rs.4,84,568/- and to pay cost of Rs.750/- to the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant approached the Forum alleging that the additional bill for Rs.4,84,568/- issued by the 1st opposite party is not liable to be paid by him as he has not consumed so much ofenergy shown in the bill. He has also submitted before the Forum that due to low demand for their products from the markets, there was a decline in production during the period from 8/98 to 4/2000 which resulted in the low consumption of energy and as such it was his prayer before the Forum that for the bill was to be cancelled along with compensation and cost. 3. Resisting the complaint the opposite party filed version contending that the complainant was liable to be pay the said amount as the bill was issued by taking the average consumption shown in the meter after replacing the same in 4/2000. It was also submitted by the opposite parties that during the period from 8/98 to 4/2000 the consumption was only 948 units which according to them was not correct since the meter was faulty during that period. The opposite parties also contended that the connected load of the complainant was also not correct since there was an additional unauthorized load of 21 KW. It was also submitted that the complainant was remitting the penalty amounts without any demur and that the case of the complainant that there was no production at all or there was only reduced production could not be accepted. The opposite parties further contended that on a comparison of consumption pattern shown in the meter of the complainant before and after replacing the meter, it would show that there was considerable consumption during the period in which the meter was not working properly. Raising the above contentions the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 4. The evidence consisted in the affidavits filed by both parties and Exts.A1 to A41 and Ext.B1. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellants and respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants 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 Forum has not appreciated the case of the opposite parties in its proper respective and that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He has advanced the contention that there was considerable consumption during the period before the meter was replaced as it was evident that after replacing the same, the monthly consumption was 12013 units whereas the total consumption for 20 months from 8/98 to 4/2000 was only 948 units. The appellants further contended that the bill issued was only as per rules since after 4/2000, the consumption has gone high and before 2000 the consumption was much less and in such a circumstance they were entitled to collect the additional bill for the period 8/98 to 4/2000 as per Clause 31(c) of Conditions of Supply. However this contention has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. It is his case that there was no finding regarding the meter being faulty and the consumer/complainant was remitting monthly charges without fail and the additional bill issued was without any basis or any evidence. He has also supported the finding of the Forum that there was no evidence to show that the earlier meter was faulty and even an assessment based on the replaced meter cannot be accepted. 7. On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case we find that the average consumption for the period from 8/98 to 4/2000 is less whereas the consumption for the succeeding months after replacement of the meter is on a higher side. Though there are no convincing reasons to come to the conclusion that there was some mistake in the meter, the consumption pattern would show that the meter was running slow as it is found in evidence that after the replacement of the meter the consumption has gone to an extent 12013 units per month. In such a circumstance we find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was some error in the meter that was replaced by the electronic meter. However we are not in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel that the opposite parties are entitled to collect arrears for the entire period of 20 months from 8/98 to 4/2000 as there are no convincing or supporting evidence to show that the meter was faulty during the whole period of 8/98 to 4/2000. In the aforesaid circumstance the Board is entitled to collect arrears only for a period of 6 months prior to 4/2000 and we direct the opposite parties/appellants to issue an additional bill for the period of 6 months prior to 4/2000 taking the average consumption as 12013 units per month. However the costs ordered by the Forum below is sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the above said modifications thereby the appellants/opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh bill for 6 months anterior to 4/2000 taking the average consumption as 12013 units per month. The appellants are also directed to pay cost of Rs.750/- ordered by the Forum below. In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
