By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. The complainant who is a consumer under opposite party for supply of electricity to his house is aggrieved by the issuance of a single regular electricity bill for Rs.5,139/- dated, 09-9-2008. He disputes the correctness of the meter and hence this complaint.

2. Opposite parties filed version admitting the complainant to be a consumer for domestic supply. It is stated that the bill for Rs.5,139/- was issued because the meter reading showed consumption of 1112 units. This was only due to excess consumption of energy made by complainant. After receiving complaint opposite party had checked the meter but did not detect any error or defect. The complaint of meter was received in the office only on 15-9-2008 and not on 10-9-2008 as averred in the complaint. As per inspection the meter was not faulty. Hence complainant is liable to pay the bill amount which is based upon the correct consumption recorded in the meter. That there is no deficiency in service.

3. Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1 marked for him. Opposite party filed counter affidavit. No documents marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence nor did they seek any opportunity for adducing oral evidence.

4. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether opposite parties are deficient in service.

(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.

5. Point (i):-

The complainant is aggrieved that Ext.A1 bill for Rs.5,139/- is excess and that the meter was faulty during the period. Opposite party refutes the allegation and states that the meter was correct while tested and that the bill is issued for the actual energy consumed as recorded in the meter.

6. Complainant has disputed only this single bill. He does not have a case that the meter was faulty prior to the issuance of this or is still faulty after the issuance of Ext.A1 bill. He does not dispute any of the bills prior to Ext.A1 or after Ext.A1. It can be presumed that all the bills prior to Ext.A1 and after Ext.A1 are normal and therefore the complainant has remitted them without any challenge. Though the complainant challenges the meter to be faulty for the particular short period for which Ext.A1 is assessed he has not taken any steps to have the meter tested. Regulation 42 of the Kerala state Electricity Board terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 states as under:

"Should the consumer dispute the accuracy of the meter installed in his premises, he may send a written application to the Assistant Engineer and pay the prescribed fee for the test".

7. The complainant has not paid any fee for conduct of test. Admittedly a complaint was preferred by the complainant. Opposite party had then checked the meter and found it as correct. Moreover the fact that complainant does not dispute the correctness of the energy recorded in the meter prior to Ext.A1 and after Ext.A1 would support that the meter was not faulty during the period for which Ext.A1 was issued. For these reasons we hold that Ext.A1 bill is correct and proper and that complainant is liable to pay the amount. We find opposite party not deficient in service.

8. In the result we dismiss the complaint. There is no order as to costs.

Dated this 7th day of December, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1

Ext.A1 : Demand and Disconnection notice dated, 09-9-2008 for Rs.5,139/- from

opposite party to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER