KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Appeal No.15/2006 JUDGMENT DATED : 18.01.2010 PRESENT:- SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The K.S.E.B, represented by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram. : APPELLANTS 2. The Asst.Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Pala. 3. The Asst.Engineer, Electrical Section, Pala. Thrissur. (By Adv.Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs M.A.Chacko, : RESPONDENT Mariapuram House, Karoor.P.O., Pala. (By Adv.Sri.S.Reghukumar) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 30th June 2005 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in O.P.295/04. Appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in the said O.P.295/04 which was filled alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing Ext. A5 Electricity bill dated 06.12.04 for Rs.13,100/-. The opposite parties denied the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the impugned bill for Rs.13,100/- was issued based on average consumption of energy as provided under clause 31( C ) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy. 2. We heard both sides. 3. Admittedly the meter was found defective. At the instance of the respondent/complainant (consumer) the matter was referred to the Electrical Inspector who submitted report dated 21.06.2003 stating that the meter was defective. It can be seen that the Electrical Inspector reported the fact regarding the defective nature of the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant as early as on 21.06.2003. But the appellants/opposite parties (KSEB) were not prepared to replace the defective meter. It is also to be noted that the complainant / consumer was of the view that the energy meter installed at his premises was found defective in May 2001. In such a situation it was incumbent upon the opposite parties KSEB to replace the defective meter as early as possible at any rate on getting the reported dated 21.06.2003 from the Electrical Inspector, Kottayam. So the aforesaid lapse or omission on the part of the opposite parties in replacing defective meter would amount to deficiency of service. 4. Admittedly the defective meter was replaced only in December 2004. But at the same time the appellants/opposite parties issued the arrear bill dated 06.12.2004 for a sum of Rs.13,100/- for the period from 9/ 2002 to 11/2004 . The aforesaid disputed bill was issued based on average consumption of energy. It is the case of the appellants/opposite parties that they issued the disputed bill for Rs.13,100/- as provided under clause 31( C ) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy. There can be no doubt about that under clause 31 ( C ) the average consumption can be taken by taking preceding three months consumption or by taking succeeding 3 months consumption. Admittedly in this case the appellants/opposite parties have taken the average consumption for six months ie, 3 bimonthly consumptions. The aforesaid method or procedure adopted by the opposite parties cannot be considered as the procedure as provided under clause 31 (C) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy. The opposite parties were legally bound to follow the provisions of clause 31 (C). If that be the position, the impugned bill for Rs.13,100/- is liable to be quashed. The Forum below is perfectly justified in canceling the disputed bill for Rs.13,100/-. 5. The Forum below has directed the appellants/opposite parties to follow provisions of the clause 31 (C ) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy and the appellants /opposite parties were given the liberty to issue fresh bills in accordance with clause 31 ( C ) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy. It is come out in evidence that the meter was defective for a pretty long time and the opposite party KSEB miserably failed in replacing the meter for a long time and they could replace the defective meter only in December 2004. In such a situation it was just and fair to assess the consumption for the disputed period based on the average consumption for succeeding 3 (three) months. The aforesaid method adopted by the Forum below and directed to be followed by the opposite parties can be taken as just and reasonable and correct method. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the aforesaid method adopted by the Forum below. It is also to be noted that no prejudice or substantial injustice will be caused by following the procedure as directed by the Forum below. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the impugned order passed by the Forum below. Hence this commission has no hesitation in confirming the impugned order dated 30.06.05 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in O.P.295/04. The present appeal deserves dismissal. Hence we do so. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below in O.P.295/04 is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Kb. | 
