KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 680/2009

JUDGMENT DATED: 02..02..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR               : MEMBER

K.K.Najeeb,                                                 : APPELLANT

Kunnakkadu House,

Nadackal.P.O.,

Erattupetta.

(by Adv.C.S.Rajmohan)

              Vs.

1. Kerala State Electricity Board,                   : RESPONDENTS

    Vaidyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom,

    Thiruvananthpauram,

     rep.by its Secretary.

2. K.S.Sebastian,

    Senior Superintendent,

    Electrical Section, KSEB.

3. The Asst.Engineer,

     KSEB Electrical Section, Erattupetta.

(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the complainant in CC.69/07 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The complainant stands dismissed.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that he is running small scale industry by name Supreme Plastics with consumer No.18266.  He availed the connection as per the minimum guarantee scheme undertaking to pay at the minimum rate of Rs.5625/- for the period of 7 years.  He was making regular payment.  On 24.1.2007 he was issued a bill for a sum of Rs.1,83,439/- for the period from 11/2004 to 4/06 mentioned as a short assessment bill.  It is alleged that issuance of such a bill amounted to deficiency in service.  He has sought for setting aside the same with Rs.10000/- compensation and cost.

          3. The opposite parties have filed version explaining that the multiplication factor 10 in the meter was omitted to be billed due to oversight.  It was noticed during the audit by the   Regional Audit Officer, Pala.  The short assessment bill is with respect to actual energy consumed and hence there is no deficiency in service.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective sides; Exts. A1 to A5, Exts.B1 to B4 and X1 and MO1.

          5. It is seen that after filing the complaint the meter was sent to the  electrical inspector as per the order of the Forum and X1 is the report received wherein it is mentioned that the multiplication/dial factor is indicated in the energy meter.  It was brought out in evidence that on 20.3.06 the meter was changed.  According to the opposite parties the meter was changed in order to send the existing meter for examination by the Electrical Inspector and report as to the existence the multiplication factor embossed in MO1 meter.  Evidently the same was done to justify the issuance of the short assessment bill.  The omission to note the multiplication factor is a serious deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Evidently it is to hide the above that the meter was replaced and old meter was sent to the Electrical Inspectorate.  Of course it is pointed out by the counsel for the KSEB that the connected load of the complainant is 63KW and the complainant was well aware of the fact that the amounts charged earlier was very low.  It was only 1/10 of the amount actually due.  It is submitted that omission to note multiplication factor was detected only in April 2006.  The counsel for the KSEB has submitted  that in the short assessment  bill no surcharge or                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           penalty has been included in the bill.  The bill details has been produced.  It is also pointed out that only on the old existing tariff the complainant has been billed in the short assessment bill.  On the other hand it was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the complainant is a  small scale entrepreneur and it would not be possible for him to bear the burden of a sum of  1,83,439/- to be paid at a single instance.  There is no submission on the part of the opposite parties that any action has been taken against the officials concerned.  There is no justification to condone such lapses.  In the circumstances we find that the appeal is liable to be allowed in part.  The                                                                                                                                                                                      opposite parties/KSEB will be directed to pay Rs. 10000/- as compensation for the deficiency on their part.  The above amount is to be deducted from Ext.A5 bill.  The complainant/appellant is permitted to pay a balance amount at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month.  The installments are to be paid from the next month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the opposite parties will be entitled to initiate coercive steps as provided in the relevant rules.  In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above.

          Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.    

          JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU                  : PRESIDENT

          S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                      : MEMBER

ps