KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 283/2006

JUDGEMENT DATE : 16-01-2010

PRESENT:

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                    :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.      The Secretary,

          K.S.E. Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

2.      The Assistant Executive Engineer,

          Electrical Major Section,

          Vennikulam.

3.      The Assistant Engineer,

          Electrical Section, Kumbanad.

                (Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

                                    Vs

RESPONDENT

Molly Thomas, W/o Peelipose Thomas,

Kizhakkei House, Pullad P.O., Thiruvalla.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Ajay Kumar. B & Smt. Suja. R)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR :  MEMBER

          It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 30-11-2005 in OP No. 80/2001 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta that the opposite parties have preferred this appeal contending that the order of the Forum below is illegal, unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.  By the impugned order the opposite parties are under directions not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant’s premises in respect of consumer No. 4235 and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- The complainants are further directed to refund Rs. 6,911/- to the complainant on application by the complainant.

2.      The complainant has approached the Forum alleging that she was served with two additional bills amounting to Rs, 2,852/- for the period from 3/00 to 9/00 and for Rs. 1,422/- for the period from 9/00 to12/00.  The complainant alleged deficiency of service in issuing such bills as she was remitting the monthly charges without fail.  The complainant has further submitted that the issue of the additional bills had caused much inconvenience, mental agony and other hardships.  She has claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation along with other prayers directing the opposite party not to disconnect their supply and to withdraw the invoices under challenge.

3.      The second opposite party filed version for himself and on behalf of other opposite parties contending that the bills were issued legally and the complainant was liable to pay the said amount.  It was submitted that the meter was faulty and a new meter was installed on 19-09-2000 with initial reading zero.  A cut off reading was taken on 06-12-2000 and based on the average consumption a bill for previous 6 months from 3/00 to 9/00 was issued in accordance with the rules and that the second bill was for the actual sum from 09/00 to 12/00.  Contending that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the authorized agent of the complainant as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A4.  On the side of the opposite parties Ext.B1 and B1(a) to (d) were marked.  The impugned order was passed by the Forum below taking into consideration of the subsequent payments also. 

5.      The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued the case based on the contentions taken in the version as well as the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  It is his case that the Forum has given a goby to the contentions of the opposite parties regarding the legal and factual positions.  He argued before us that the meter was faulty as can be seen from Exs. B1(a) to (d) for the period from 9/97 till 9/00 in which month, the meter was replaced by a properly functioning meter.  He has invited our attention to Ext.B1 the test certificate dated 22-05-2003 from TMR Division Kottayam wherein it is stated that the meter that was newly fitted was having no defects.  It is his further case that the complainant also did not have a case that the old meter was functioning properly when the meter was replaced in 9/00.  It is also his case that only the average of the subsequent two months could be taken as per 31(c) of the conditions of supply as the earlier recordings were the same.  With regard to the second bill, it is his case that the complainant was remitting the charges based on a fixed monthly consumption of 150 units and as the consumption was 953 units for 3 months after replacement, the average consumption was taken to be 318 units per month.  It is also argued by him that the respondent/complainant did not dispute the readings taken in the replaced meter and in such a circumstance, the only course available to the opposite parties was to issue a bill for the previous 6 months though the meter was faulty for a long time.  He has also attacked the directions of the Forum to give compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and refund of Rs. 6,911/- with costs of Rs. 1,000/- as there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the collection subsequent to the replacement of the meter were correct and sustained.

6.      On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the two bills issued were for the period from 3/00 to 9/00 and from 9/00 to 12/00.  The complainant would say that she was remitting the charges without any break for the consumption, which was much below the permitted quantity of energy.  But, we are not inclined to accept the said stand taken by the complainant as on a perusal of Ext.B1(c), we find that the readings from 9/97 to 9/00 is the same ie, 3995.  The complainant was remitting only charges at the rate of Rs. 189/- per month on the presumption that she would be using only 150 units per month.  But, it is evident that after the replacement of the meter on 19/09/2000, the consumption is on a higher side. Clause 31(c) of the conditions of supply says that in the event of the meter being faulty, the opposite parties are entitled to issue a bill based on the average monthly consumption taking into consideration of the units consumed either after the replacement or before the replacement.  In the instant case, it is clear that the opposite parties are not able to take the average consumption before the replacement as from 09/97 the meter was stuck and the complainant was remitting only the charges for 150 units per month.  B1 test report would also come to the rescue of the opposite parties to show that the replaced meter was not having any defects.  There was no creeping or any such defects to the meter.  Hence it is our indelible impression that the replaced meter was recording the actual consumption and the opposite parties are entitled to issue a bill based on the average consumption for three months after the replacement of the meter.  In such circumstance, the opposite parties cannot be held faulty in issuing the impugned bills.  As the subsequent payments were also based on the meter reading recorded in the replaced meter, there cannot be a direction to refund any amount to the consumer/complainant.

7.      The Forum has ordered compensation and costs amounting to Rs. 3,000/- and 1,000/- respectively.  As it is found that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties such directions cannot also be held liable to be paid .  We set aside the said directions including the direction to refund Rs. 6,911/-. 

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order of the Forum below in OP No. 80/01 is set aside.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

            S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

         M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sr.