O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> The case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> The petitioner is the legal heir of late Kora Kuruvila. The said Kora Kuruvila is a consumer of the opposite party with wide consumer No. 180. The petitioner states that meter instaled to the premises of the petitioner was faulty from 5/04 and petitioner intimated the said fact to the office of the opposite party. On 11/04 the faulty meter was replaced with a new meter. The petitioner is paying regular electricity charges during the period when the meter was faulty. On 12..2..2007 the second opposite party issued a demand notice demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 4,467/- to the petitioner. The said bill was shown as prepared on 29..12..2006. The due date shown in the bill is 29..1..2007. <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> The petitioner states that the issuance of the said bill after a period of limitation is a clear deficiency of service. So, he prays for cancellation of the bill dtd: 12..2..2007 and he claims Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.<br /> Opposite party entered appearance filed version contenting that petitioner is not a consumer of the opposite party. The original consumer of the opposite party is Kora Kuruvila and petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. The opposite party contented that the meter of the petitioner was faulty from 1/04 and due to shortage of new meters the opposite party could able to replace the faulty meter only on 9/04. The bill was issued for the meter faulty period based on the average consumption before the instalation of the new meter and the petitioner had remitted the said bills. On 26..6..2006 the Audit party find that the consumption of the petitioner after the installation of the new meter was above 500 units and bill come up to 779 units. So additional bill was issued to the petitioner by calculating the averagee of the six months, after the installation of the new meter, after deducting the amounts remitted by the peptitioner. According to opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Where t here is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs?<br /> Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by the both parties Ext. A1 and A2 series documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2documents on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The opposite party has a definite case that since one Kora Kuruvila Maliyeckal, is the consumer of the opposite party with vide consumer No. 180 the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition so, the petition is to be dismissed. But we are of the opinion that as the legal heir of Kora Kuruvila. Petition is a 'beneficiary' so, petitioner can be treated as a consumer under section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. So petition is maintainable. The other question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in issuing bill dated 29..12..2006 to the petitioner. The petitioner produced demand notice cum disconnection notice dtd: 29..12..2006. The said document is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that the bill is for a period when the meter was faulty. That is for a period from 5/04 to 9/04. The opposite party in their version admitted that during the faulty period the consumer was assessed. Assessment and issuance of bill during meter faulty period is stated in Regulation 33 (2) of the conditions of supply Ext. A1 is issued after commencement of the Kerala State Electricity Board terms and conditions of supply 2005. As per section 33 (2). If the board shall issue a bill based on the previous six months average consumption in such case the meter shall be replaced within one month. If the average consumption for the previous six months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason the consumptionwill be determined based on the meter reading in suceeding three months after replacement of meter.<br /> So, if an assessment is made based on the previous six month average no fresh assessment can be done as per law after replacement of faulty meter. The average meter<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> reading of succeeding 3 months after replacement can be taken only in case if the meter ceasing to record or anyother reasons. Here the assessment in Ext. A1 is an assessment done twice. We are of the opinion that no consumer can be assessed twice. Furthermore as per Regulation 33 (2) the faulty meter has to be replaced within one month. The petitioner has also produced certain bills issued by the opposite party after the replacement of the faulty meter the said document is marked as Ext. A2 series documents Ext. A2 series documents shows that the bymonthly consumption of the petitioner will only come around 500 units Ext. B2 is the meter reading register produced by the opposite party on perusel of Ext. B2 it can be seen that the average consumption of energy of the petitioner in several month is very law after installation of new meter <br /> Ext. A1 is dtd: 29..12..2006 as per section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of 2 years from the date with such some become first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable arrear of charges. Here on perusal of Ext. A1 it can be seen that it was issued after a period of 2 years when such some become first due. So, we are of the opinion that the demand for recovery of amount as per Ext. A1 is barred under section 56 (2) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of findings in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and petitioner is entitled for reliefs sought for. <br /> In the result the demand cum disconnection notice dtd: 29..12..2006 for an amount of Rs. 4,467/- is cancelled. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and<br /> <br /> -5-<br /> sufferings to the petitioner, no compensation is ordered. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case no cost is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2008.