KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 1115/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 04-02-2010 PRESENT: SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPELLANTS 1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Thengana, Changanacherry. 2. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Changanacherry. 3. The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Thiruvananthapuram. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair) Vs RESPONDENT P.H. Basheer, Proprietor, Veeko Rubber Products, Industrial Nagar P.O., Changanacherry. JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in OP No. 130/01 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A11 additional bill dated 03-02-2001 for Rs. 1,12,602/-. The said bill was issued on the basis of short assessment. The complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the said bill without any basis or supporting material. The opposite parties entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that from June 1999 onwards the Board officials were having doubt about the actual consumption of energy by the consumer and so they kept the energy meter under observation and subsequently, it was found that the energy meter was not recording the actual consumption of energy and thereby the said meter was replaced in May 2000 by installing a new electronic meter. It is the further case of the opposite parties that after installation of the electronic meter, the consumption has been considerably increased and based on the consumption of energy recorded by the new energy meter the additional bill for Rs. 1,12,602/- was issued. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP 130/01. 2. Before the Forum below, A1 to A12 and B1 to B4 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the complaint in OP 130/01. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order allowing the complaint and thereby A11 additional bill dated 03-02-2001 for Rs. 1,12,602/- was cancelled. The opposite parties were also directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties therein. 3. When this appeal was taken for final hearing, there was no representation for respondent/complainant. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on B4 Meter Reading Register and argued for the position that the consumption of energy had been increased after installation of the energy meter in May 2000 and based on the consumption of energy recorded by the new meter, the additional bill was issued by way of short assessment for the period from June 1999 to May 2000. Thus, the appellants justified their action in issuing A11 additional bill dated 03-02-2001 and requested for setting aside the impugned order dated 3rd September 2004 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP No. 130/01. 4. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the appellants/opposite parties can be justified in issuing A11 additional bill dated 03-02-2001 for Rs. 1,12,602/- by way of short assessment for the period from June 1999 to May 2000? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 03-09-2004 passed by CDRF, Kottayma in OP No. 130/2001? 5. Point Nos. 1 & 2: The respondent/complainant was having an industrial connection from the year 1988 with Consumer No. 4873. He has been remitting the energy charges based on the consumption recorded by the energy meter. Admittedly, the energy meter was replaced by an electronic meter in May 2000. There is nothing on record to show that the old meter was replaced by a new electronic mete because of the faulty nature of the old meter. As per B4 Meter Reading Register, it is only recorded that the meter changed on 30-05-2000. No reason for changing the said meter has been shown in B4 Meter Reading Register. There is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the appellants/opposite parties that the old meter was not recording the actual consumption of energy or that the old meter was faulty. There is also no material available on record to support the case of the appellants/opposite parties that the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant was under observation from June 1999 onwards. Thus, it can only be concluded that the old mechanical meter was replaced by a new electronic meter at the whims and fancies of the officials of KSEB. 6. There can be no doubt that after installation of the electronic meter; the consumption of energy has been increased. Ext.B4 Meter Reading Register would strengthen the case of the opposite parties that after installation of the new electronic meter the consumption has been increased. But, the case of the complainant is that he changed the nature of his production ie, he changed the production from Hawai Chappals to Rubberized Mats and other products and there was enhanced demand for the products manufactured in the industrial unit. The aforesaid case of the complainant that he changed the products from Hawai Chappals to Rubberized Mats has not been disputed or denied by the opposite parties. So, the reason for enhanced consumption of energy can be due to the changed circumstance. Mere fact that a consumer has been consuming energy at an enhanced quantity for a particular period cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the old meter was defective or that the consumer was consuming excessive energy, but the same has not been recorded by the energy meter. In the present case on hand, there was enhanced consumption of energy from May 2000 onwards and based on the enhanced consumption of energy, the complainant has been remitting energy charges for the energy he actually consumed. So, the issuance of A11 additional bill by way of short assessment for the period from June 1999 to May 2000 cannot be justified. The appellants/opposite parties could not point out any sort of malpractice on the part of the respondent/complainant in the consumption of energy. The appellants could not substantiate their case that the energy meter installed at the premises of the respondent/complainant was defective and the said meter was not recording the actual consumption of energy. In such a situation, the request of the complainant/consumer to get A11 additional bill dated 03-02-2001 cancelled is to be allowed. The Forum below has rightly allowed the complaint in OP 130/01 by cancelling A11 additional bill for Rs. 1,12,602/-. We do not find any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. If that be so, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so. The points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 03-09-2004 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP No. 130/01 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Sr. | 
