BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 27/08/2012

Date of Order : 11/10/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 525/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complainant is running a hotel for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The complainant is holding a 3 phase connection to the hotel. At the instance of the meter reader, the complainant submitted a written complaint to the 2^nd opposite party dated 05-12-2011 with a prayer to rectify the defects of the meter or to replace the same. On 10-01-2012, the APT Squad conducted detailed examination of the meter and came to the conclusion that the meter was faulty. On 11-01-2012, the complainant preferred another representation to replace the meter, but again to no avail. The opposite parties continued to issue monthly electricity bills on the basis of the readings in the faulty meter. On 13-08-2012, the APT Squad inspected the premises and prepared a site mahazar. On the basis of the same, a short assessment bill dated 17-08-2012 for Rs. 1,56,812/- was issued. The complainant is not liable to pay the disputed bill issued on the basis of the readings in the defective meter.

2. The version of the opposite parties :-

The bill in question dated 17-08-2012 for Rs. 1,56,812/- has been raised on a short assessment for the bills from April 2011 to September 2011. The APT Squad conducted an inspection on 13-08-2012 and found that the current transformer in one phase of the 3 phases metering arrangement is faulty. The meter is not faulty only one phase CT has become faulty. So, the opposite party was charging calculated average from November 2011. The inspection dated 13-08-2012 have proved that the exact unrecorded portion is 34.52% of the total consumption. This shows that only 63.48% of total consumption is recorded. The bill dated 17-08-2012 has properly accounted the already paid portion of the total energy consumed. There is no merit in the complaint preferred and the same is liable to be dismissed.

3. We have heard the respective parties. Admittedly, one phase of the complainant's current meter is not working. However, the opposite party calculated the reading of the defective phase on the basis of the other 2 phases alone, this contention does not hold good at law. The complainant is legally entitled to get calculated the electricity charges on the basis of the consumption in all the 3 phases together not in part. In that view of the matter, the impugned bill issued on the basis of the calculation in 2 phases is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. During the proceedings, both sides were amenable to the issue of a fresh bill as per Regulation 33 (2) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Conditions of Supply 2005.

4. In view of the above, to set things right, we pass the following order :-

1. We set aside the impugned bill.

2. We direct the opposite party to forthwith replace the defective current meter with a new one and issue a fresh bill under Regulation 33 (2) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Conditions of Supply 2005, for the disputed period as envisaged and till the replacement of the meter was done.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of October 2012.

Forwarded/By Order Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.