KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 89/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 27..12..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR             : MEMBER

1. TheKerala State Electricity Board,      : APPELLANTS

     Vydhyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom,

     Thiruvananthapuram rep.by its

     Secretary.

2. The Assistant Engineer,                      

     Electrical Major Section,

     Gandhinagar.

(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

N.A.Abraham,                                            : RESPONDENT

Nalloor House,

Malloossery Kara,

Perumbaikkadu Village,

Kottayam District.

(By Adv.C.S.Rajmohan)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC.29/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The energy bill issued by the appellants/opposite parties stands cancelled.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that he received the impugned bill dated 1.1.09 demanding a sum of Rs.4760/- alleged to be the dues for the period from April 2003 to August 2005.  He has alleged that the bill is illegal. 

          3. The opposite parties have contended that the meter of the consumer was faulty from 4/03 to 8/05.  The meter was changed during 8/05.  The bill has been issued taking the energy consumption after replacing the faulty meter.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits by the respective sides; Exts.A1 and Exts.B1 and B2.

          5. The Forum has relied on regulation 33 (2) of the Conditions of Supply and held that the meter ought to have been replaced within one month and that the average consumption for the previous 6 months before the meter became faulty ought to have been taken.

          5. It is the contention of the appellants that replacing the meter within one month would not be possible  in all cases and that it is clause 42(3) of the Conditions of Supply that applied  We find that as per clause 42(3) the Board is to replace the meter immediately if it is found faulty.  We find that there is no justification at all for replacing  the meter after a lapse of two years and then issuing the bill again after 3 years after replacing the meter.  We find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence there is no interference in the order of the Forum is called   for.  The appeal is dismissed.

          Office will forward the LCR to the Forum alongwith the copy of this order.

                   JUSTICE.K.R.UDAYABHANU       : PRESIDENT

                   S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           : MEMBER

ps