KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM F.A.742/06 JUDGMENT DATED: 27.01.2010 PRESENT:- SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Kerala State Electricity Board, : APPELLANT Represented by its Assistant Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B., Kunnamkulam Division. (By Adv.Sri.S.Balachandran) Vs M.V.Bhanu Prakash, : RESPONDENT Mullathu House, Palace Road, Kunnamkulam. JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 20.03.2006 in O.P.1104/2003 the CDRF, Thrissur has directed the opposite parties to cancel the impugned bills and issue a fresh bill in accordance with law and to adjust the excess realization in the fresh bill. The opposite parties are also directed to pay cost of the proceedings which is estimated to be Rs.1,000/-. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties contesting the legality and sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that his wife had an electric connection bearing Consumer No.7410 with the 1st opposite party and that the meter was faulty for a long period. It is also his case that the bills were issued directing him to pay exorbitant amounts even when his consumption was very low. He was also served with additional bills with meter rent and alleging that the bills issued were not in accordance with law the complainant prayed for directions to cancel the bills and to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. The opposite parties filed version contenting that the complainant was a three phase consumer and he was liable to pay the current charges for a minimum of 100 units of per month even if the monthly consumption was below 100 units. It is also submitted that the meter was faulty and on 17.09.03 the same was changed with a meter of capacity of above 30 ampere. The initial reading of the meter was 06 and on 07.10.03 the reading was taken which was found to be 161 and considering the fact that the average consumption is 488 units per month bills were issued. The opposite parties further submitted that the realization of meter rent was in accordance with the direction of the KSEB Board and there was no deficiency of their part. The evidence consisted of Exts.P1 to P9 on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R6 on the side of the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the direction of the Forum below is illegal and unsustainable on the ground that the opposite parties/appellants have acted only in accordance with law. It is also his case that the realization of meter rent was accepted by the Forum below. The learned counsel invited our attention to Ext.R6 where it is shown that the additional bill was issued for only 6 months ie, (3 spot bills) and the average monthly consumption was taken to be 488 units which is not challenged by the complainant by an appeal. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the lower Forum ought to have found that the bills were issued correctly and no bills were issued for more than a period of 6 months. Thus, the learned counsel advanced the contention that the Forum ought not have directed the opposite parties to cancel the bills or to pay costs. On an appreciation of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants and on perusing the records we find that the complainant is a three phase consumer and that the bills were issued consequent to changing of the faulty meter and taking the average consumption. Further Clause 31( C ) of the conditions of supply envisages that average of either the previous of three months or the succeeding three months is to be taken as the basis for issuing additional bill for the faulty period. In the instant case, it is noted that the appellants/opposite parties have taken the consumption of 20 days after replacing the meter for reckoning the average consumption. Though we are not impressed by the said formula adopted by the opposite parties the same can be accepted on the ground that the complainant is not aggrieved by the said calculation. It seems that the complainant is much aggrieved by the realization of rent. On a perusal of the relevant circular we find that the meter rent realized by the opposite parties is correct and the same is accepted by the Forum below. In the totality of the circumstances we find that the opposite parties are correct in issuing the bills and the Forum has gone wrong in directing the opposite parties to cancel the bills with further direction to pay costs. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the Forum below in O.P.1104/2003 is set aside. However, in the facts and circumstance of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN : MEMBER | 
