Case of the petitions’ is as follows:

The petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party, Electricity Board, with vide Consumer No. 1467. According to the petitioner his meter was faulty from October, 2006. Petitioner on 6..2..2007 given a complaint to the opposite party with regard to the faulty meter. But opposite party has not heed to the complaint of the petitioner. After installation of new meter the current charge of the petitioner was only Rs. 89/-. Petitioner states that during the meter faulty period, ie., for 8 months, excess amount were collected from the petitioner. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in collecting excess amount from the petitioner is clear deficiency of service. So, petitioner prays for

refund of exc ess amount collected from him and also he claims Rs. 2000/- and compensation along with cost of the proceedings.

-2-

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to opposite party on 27..1..2007 when the meter reader of the opposite party reached premises of the petitioner for taking the meter reading meter was found non functioning . So meter reader issued bill to the petitioner for the faulty period, based on the average consumption, as per section 33 (2) of the terms and condidtions of supply 2005. Petitioner on 6..2..2007 had given a complaint to the opposite party and as per the complaint meter of the petitioner was replaced on 15..2..2007. Opposite party states that all bills issued to the petitioner except bill dtd: 27..1..2007 are issued based on the actual consumption recorded by fault free meter installed in the premises of the petitioner. According to opposite party bill is issued as per existing rules and regulations. The 3^rd opposite party inspected the premises of the petitioner on 20..4..2007 and confirmed that bills issued to the petitioner commensurate with connected load and consumption of the petitioner. Bill served on 27..1..2007 is issued based on average consumption as per clause 33 (2) of the terms and conditions of supply 2005. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii) Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 and A2

documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1 document on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

Opposite party produced the meter reading register of the petitioner and said document is marked as Ext. B1 meter reading of the petitioner is mentioned. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the meter of the petitioner was faulty on 25..1..2007. The case of the petitioner is that after the installation the new meter the consumption of the petitioner is only around 89 units. So, the bills issued to the petitioner for the previous months according to the petitioner is not legal and correct. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the meter of the petitioner was faulty only on 25..1..2007. For the meter faulty period the bill was issued as per clause 33 (2) of the conditions of electric supply 2005. We are of the opinion that from the Ext. B1 it can be seen that for the previous months before meter become faulty there was variations of the consumed electrical energy. But such variations cannot be treated as fault with meter. Further more, petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove that the meter of the petitioner was faulty before 25..1..2007. Further more for the meter faulty period is bill issued as per 33 (2) of the terms and conditions of electric supply 2005. We find no deficiency in service with regard to the bills issued by the opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of finding in point No. 1, peptition is to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and

pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of December, 2008.