KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.37/06
JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2010
PRESENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
1. The Asst.Engineer,
KSEB, Section Office,
Kalanjoor.
2. The Asst. Ex.Engineer
KSEB, Major Section
Exhamkulam.
3. The Ex.Engineer -- APPELLANTS
KSEB, Division Office,
Adoor.
4. The secretary,
KSE Board, Pattom,
Trivandrum.
(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs.
K.P.Rajendranath,
Vadakkekuttikattu Veedu,
Kalanjoor P.O, -- RESPONDENT
Pathanamthitta.
]
JUDGMENT
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 23.6.05 in OP.198/03 of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta by the opposite parties who are aggrieved by the directions to revise the demand in Ext.A1 bill and to refund Rs.442/- paid in excess along with compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. However, the opposite parties are left at liberty to adjust the amount of Rs.442/- in the next bill amount in favour of the complainant.
2. The complainant has approached the forum alleging that he is a consumer of the opposite parties bearing Con.No.6940 and that he had remitted the bills up to January 2000 and that thereafter he was given a bill for Rs.2441/-, which included the current charges for the previous 6 months and that he was not ready to pay that amount. According to him he received another bill during May 2003 for an amount of Rs.2937/- and that he was not liable to pay that bill also as the meter was faulty. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the additional bills issued to him with compensation and costs.
3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing version wherein it was contended that spot bill was introduced from 1.6.2000 and the cut off reading was taken on 2.5.2000 and when the reading was taken, the complainant’s reading was 3699. Hence, the meter was declared faulty and the meter was replaced and the bill was issued taking the average consumption. It was further submitted that the bill was issued only for a period of 6 months taking the actual consumption and on the complaint of the complainant the bill was revised to Rs.1703/-. The opposite parties further contended that the bill for Rs.2937/- was issued in 5/03 since heavy consumption was noted in the meter. On investigation, it was found that there was leakage in the premises of the complainant and that for such kind of defect, the opposite parties could not be held faulty. It was also submitted that after the rectification of the defects, the consumption level became normal and the complainant was liable to pay the amount of Rs.2937/- and inspite of giving installments, the complainant did not remit the amount and hence the service was disconnected on 4/9/03 which was restored on 6.9.03 on clearing the dues by the complainant. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A13. The opposite parties produced 3 documents, which were marked as Exts.B1 to B3.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the Forum below ought not have found that the complainant was not liable to pay the bill amount of Rs.2,441/- issued on 1.7.02. It is submitted by him that the meter was not running and hence the meter was replaced and it was based on the average consumption recorded in the meter that a bill for the previous 6 months was issued and that the said bill was revised to Rs. 1703/- under rule 32 (b) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. The learned counsel invited our attention to Clause 31 (c) of the conditions of supply which says that in the event of the meter reading seizes to record consumption or if it found faulty, the meter can be replaced and average consumption can be taken either for the previous 3 months or the succeeding 3 months and in the instant case, as the meter was faulty, the average consumption of the succeeding months was taken and a bill was issued and the complainant was liable to pay the said amount. It is also argued for the learned counsel that the forum has thoroughly gone wrong in directing to refund Rs.442/- and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusing the records, we find that the complainant has a case that he is not liable to pay the additional bills issued to him as the meter was found faulty. We are not inclined to accept the said contention of the complaint as the provisions of the conditions of supply stipulate that if the meter is found faulty the meter can be replaced and the average consumption can be taken either for the previous 3 months or the succeeding 3 months and a bill can be issued for a back period of 6 months based on the average consumption. In this particular case, we find that the opposite parties/appellants have adhered to the said clause ie; 31 ( c) of the conditions of the supply and it is also found that the complainant has no case that the meter was not faulty. In the said circumstances it is our impression that the complainant/ consumer was liable to pay the additional bills issued by the opposite parties. We find that the forum below has failed in appreciating the clauses contained in the conditions of the supply which is agreed to by the complainant also at the time of getting the supply from the opposite parties.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the forum below in OP.198/03 is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their own costs.
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
s/L
