KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 592/2006

JUDGMENT DATED: 16.3.2011

PRESENT:-

JUSTCE. SHRI.   K.R. UDAYABHANU     :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR     :    MEMBER

 APPELLANTS

1.    The Secretary,

K.S.E. Board,

Pattom,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2.    The Asst. Engineer,

K.S.E.B. Section,

Koothattukulam.

             (Rep. by Adv. Sri B. Sakthidharan Nair)

                                                        Vs

 RESPONDENT

        K.M. Joseph,

        Kizhakkacheriyil Veedu,

        Karamala P.O.,

        Koothattukulam,

        Ernakulam.  

                           (Rep.  by  Adv. Sri. Tomjoseph)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR     :    MEMBER

The order dated 31.05.2006  of  CDRF, Ernakulam  in C.C. 131/2006, is being assailed in this  appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to issue a fresh bill for the disputed  period on the basis of previous 3 months average.  The Forum has also quashed the Ext. A3 bill which was the subject matter in the above said complaint. 

          The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is the consumer of the opposite parties under L.T. VII B category and that the meter was found to be faulty which was replaced on 26.6.2005 and thereafter on 24.8.2005, the complainant was issued a bill for Rs 7,154/- alleged to be the charges for the consumption of 1201units for 2 months.  The complainant has submitted before the Forum that there was no occasion for the complainant to consume such energy and that there was some mistake in the readings taken by the opposite party.  Alleging deficiency of service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bill and to pay compensation and costs.

          The opposite parties in their version contented that as the old meter was faulty, a new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant on 25.6.2005 and the initial reading was 0001.  It was also submitted that the next reading was taken on 24.8.2005 and it showed a consumption of 1201 units and accordingly the bill for Rs. 7154/- was issued.  It was further submitted that based on the report of the meter reader and on the complainant’s verbal complaint second opposite party had inspected the premises and found that there was severe leakage of electrical energy from the installation of the complainant.  The opposite parties submitted that the complainant was directed to correct the leakage and on correcting the leakage the consumption for the subsequent months was found to be on the lower side.  However the opposite parties argued for the position that the complainant was liable to pay the bill for Rs. 7,154/- as the complainant was solely responsible for the leakage in the installation of the complainant. 

          The evidence consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext. A1 to A3 on his side. On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents B1 to B3 were marked. 

          Heard both sides.

          The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite parties vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had not gone into the deeper aspects of the case and it was without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case that the complaint was allowed to a greater extent.  The learned counsel has submitted before us that under Clause 36  of the conditions of  supply of electrical energy,  the complainant is liable for the loss caused to the K.S.E. Board in the circumstances, where energy is lost by leakage in the installation.  He has also argued that the complainant cannot be heard to say that he has not used energy and so is not liable to pay the charges.  The learned counsel advanced the further contention that the complainant could not be treated as a consumer as the supply was given for commercial purpose and contended for the position that the complaint ought to have been dismissed. 

  On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below it is his very case that there was no leakage in the installation as can be seen from the subsequent consumption as noted by the opposite parties themselves.  He has submitted before us that for the subsequent month, the consumption was only two units and submitted that the initial reading of the meter might have been wrong and if there was leakage in the installation there would have been some increase in the subsequent periods also as it would take some time for rectifying the leakage after getting direction from the opposite parties to rectify the leakage.  It was also submitted that the order of the Forum below has been passed on proper appreciation of all the facts and circumstances of the case and argued for the dismissal of the appeal with compensatory costs.

  On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, respondents and also on perusing the records we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the meter was changed on 25.6.2005.  The appellant would argue that the initial reading was 001 and the subsequent reading on 24.8.2005 was 1201 and it was for the units of electricity that passed through meter that the bill was issued.  The complainant submitted that there was no such leakage and for the subsequent period of 2 months the total consumption was only 2 units which would show that for the previous period the consumption shown was not correct.  It is also to be found that if there was leakage in the installation that would have reflected in the subsequent period also and it would require some time for rectification of the leakage. The appellant would argue that the premises might have been locked up after the installation and the complainant has informed the opposite party that the complainant had rectified the leakage.  On a careful examination of the entire facts and circumstances we find that if there was leakage it would have continued even after the taking of the meter reading on 25.8.2005 and there would have been  an increase in the consumption pattern even if  the premises was locked up.  It is also to be found that the opposite parties have not produced any authentic record to show that the initial reading was 001 apart from a copy of the register produced as B3 which was under the custody and control of the opposite party.  If the meter reading was 0001 at the time of installation, the opposite parties could have recorded this reading

in the premises card of the complainant or they could have obtained the signature of the complainant to show that the initial reading was only 0001.  In the back drop of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the impression that there would have been some mistake in noting the initial reading.  However the Forum below has not totally denied the case of the opposite parties.    It has given liberty to the opposite parties to issue a fresh bill for the disputed period on the basis of the previous 3 months average.  We do not find any cogent grounds to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. 

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed.   The order dated 31.5.2006 in C.C. 131/06 of CDRF, Ernakulam is confirmed. .  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                                      S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR   ;  MEMBER

                                 JUSITCE.   K.R. UDAYABHANU :  PRESIDENT

ST