KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM FA.649/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 8.1.2009 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP.671/02 PRESENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Asst.Executive Engineer, : APPELLANTS Electrical Major Section, KSEB, Ayyanthole, Thrissur. 2. The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom, Trivandrum. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. K.Mohandas, : RESPONDENT Pranavam, Panchikkal, Ayyanthole, Thrissur-3. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Trissur in the file of OP.No.671/2002 dated 23.2.03. The appellants are the opposite parties and the opposite party prefers this appeal from the finding of the Forum below. The brief of the case is that petitioner is a consumer of the opposite parties and opposite parties issued a bill No.30476 dated 1.7.02 for Rs.4161/- which is an additional bill for 6 months to the complainant. The meter was defective and complaint was made on many times to replace the meter. But now only it was replaced by the opposite parties since the meter was not replaced at the proper time, the petitioner has suffered loss and much difficulties. Though a lawyer notice was sent on 5th July 2002, it was not fruitful and in order to avoid disconnection the petitioner has paid the amount as per the bill on 6.7.02 under protest. It is prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to cancel the additional bill and refund Rs.4168/- already paid by the complainant and also the compensation of Rs.2500/- and also cost. The opposite parties filed their version and contended that the amount claimed is only as per the provisions contained in para 31© of the Conditions of Electrical Energy1990 and also in accordance with the provisions of Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act 1910. they admitted that the meter was defective from the date of connection ie 10,2,92. Due to the various reasons this meter was replaced only on 26.3.02 by a correct meter. After replacement the consumption of energy for two months was recorded as 634 units on 1.7.02 the consumption of energy as also recorded on 2.4.02 is 393 units from the date of replacement of meter ie 26.3.02. Hence as per the provisions a back assessment for a period limiting to 6 months during the defective period of the meter was only made by taking an average of 634 units for 2 months. The above assessment was also in accordance with the order in OP 250/97 dated 5.6.97 of the Forum below. It is clearly stated that the maximum period for which a bill can be revised in respect of a defective meter under Section 26(6) is six months and not more. Therefore, the additional bill issued is based on ligitimate grounds. The petition may be dismissed with costs. 2. The Forum below given opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence from the part of the complainant Ext.P1 and P2 were marked and in the respondents Ext.R1 also marked. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides. The Forum below raised two points. They are whether the impugned bill is justifiable? And other is reliefs and costs. 3.The Forum below answered the above two questions clearly. According to the finding of the Forum below the opposite party have filed a calculation statement which shows that the particulars of reading, energy taken and calculation, showing how the amount of Rs.4161/- is arrived at. The respondents have claimed only for six months period . There cannot be any quarrel regard the calculation made and the learned counsel for the petitioner have no dispute with regard to this calculation statement. The respondents have claimed only the amount according to the provisions of Law and therefore, the additional bill is justified. Forum below is also answered point No.2 and found that whether the bill is issued in accordance with law and the petitioner is not entitled to get any refund. The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.2500/-. In this case the respondents have admitted that the meter was installed on 10.2.92 and from the date of connection itself. It was defective and the meter was not replaced due to various reasons including non availability of sufficient meters and it was replaced only on 26.3.02. The Forum below found that it is admitted that though the meter was defective, it was replaced only long after. Taking everything into account the Forum below found that a nominal compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- cost. The respondents are free to adjust the amount of Rs.1500/- towards future bills. The result of petition is that the complaint allowed only to the extent of awarding compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.500/- and directed to adjust the amount of Rs.1500/- towards future bills. The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum before this Commission. No representation for the respondents. The complainant/ opposite party have no case that they sustained any loss or damages in this case. No such allegations put in this complaint by the complainant in the Forum below. There is no such a evidence corroborating for such loss or damages, not adduced before the Forum below. The Forum below also found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and no unfair trade practice committed by them. This Commission is having suspicious that on what circumstance, on basis what evidence and law the Forum below ordered a compensation of Rs.1000/- and cosofRs.500/ to the complainant in this case. It is reminds that the appellants are KSEB running from the fund of consumers. This is the money of the people. How the Forum below is directing to pay the people’s money to a particular consumer without any basis of Law or evidence. This Commission is seeing that this order passed by the Forum below only a result of a guesswork. This is not accordance with law and evidence. In the result this appeal is allowed and set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The counsel appeared for the appellant stresses for awarding a compensatory cost to the respondent/opposite party under the provisions of Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1993. It is a fit case to award a compensation under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act for filing a frivolous or vexatious complaint by the complainant. At present we are not passing any such an order. This appeal disposed accordingly. Both parties are direct to suffer their own respective costs. The points are answered accordingly. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
