KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:902/2004 JUDGMENT DATED 12.01.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1.The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB, Annamanada. : APPELLANTS 2.KSEB, Repd. by its Secretary, Pattom, Trivandrum. (By Adv:Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. M.K.Davis, Maliyekkal House, : RESPONDENT Kuruvilassery.P.O, Thrissur Dist. (By Adv: Sri.C.Joseph George) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in OP:1048/03 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The above complaint was filed to get the disputed bill dated:30..10..2002 for Rs.8484/- cancelled. The case of the complainant was that the said bill was issued without any basis and he had not consumed so much of electrical energy. On the other hand, the opposite parties contended that the bill was issued based on the meter readings taken and that the said bill was issued for the energy actually consumed by the complainant/consumer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:31..8..2004 cancelling the disputed bill for Rs.8484/- with a further direction to the opposite parties to issue fresh bill by following the procedure prescribed under clause 31 (C) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Hence the present appeal. 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that there was no defect for the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant and so there was no necessity or requirement to follow the provisions of clause 31(C) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Thus, the appellants requested to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 3. There is no dispute that the complainant in OP:1048/03 is a consumer under KSEB with consumer No:2967. The dispute is only with respect to the bill dated:30..10..2002 for Rs.8484/-. It is to be noted that the complainant doubted the correctness of the energy meter installed at his premises. But there was no case for the opposite parties that the energy meter was defective. So, at the instance of the complainant the matter was tested at the laboratory of KSEB and no defect could be noticed. The only defect noticed was the screw provided for the meter was broken. There is nothing on record to show that due to the broken screw there was anything wrong with the recording of consumption by the energy meter. It is further to be noted that it is the case of the complainant/consumer that the meter is defective. Then it is for the complainant to move the electrical inspector to get the energy meter inspected. But the complainant has not taken any such steps. So, the materials available on record would show that there was no defect in the said energy meter. Installed at the premises of the complainant. 4. It is categorically contended by the opposite parties that the meter reading was taken during August 2002 and the reading was 4001. And thereafter the bimonthly reading was taken in October 2002 and it was recorded as 6037. So, the consumption of energy would be 2036 units. It is based on the aforesaid consumption of energy recorded by the energy meter, the disputed bill dated:30..10..2002 for Rs.8484/- was issued. Another important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the admission of the complainant that after the impugned bill other bills have been issued for the consumption of energy and that the complainant has no dispute regarding the subsequent bills issued by KSEB. It may be correct to say that there was excess consumption of energy during the period from August 2002 and October 2002 and it resulted in issuance of the disputed bill dated:30..10..2002 for Rs.8484/-. The issuance of the disputed bill was in accordance with the consumption of energy and the said bill was issued based on the consumption recorded by the energy meter. So, there is no ground to cancel the disputed bill dated:30..10..2002 for Rs.8484/-. 5. The finding of the Forum below that the opposite parties are liable to follow the procedure prescribed under clause 31(C) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that the aforesaid clause 31(c) can be made applicable in the case of defective meter. But in the present case on hand, there is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the complainant that the meter was defective. The Forum below has gone wrong in directing the opposite parties to follow the procedure prescribed under clause 31 (c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Thus in all respects, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. Hence we do so. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated:31..8..2004 passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in OP:1048/03 is set aside and thereby the complaint in OP:1048/03 is dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs throughout. M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL. | 
