KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 50/2004
JUDGMENT DATED : 30.11.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
1. The Secretary,
K.S.E.B,
Pattom,Trivandrum.
2. The Asst. Ex. Engineer,
K.S.E.B, Electrical Major Section,
Kottayam East.
3. The Asst.. Engineer,
K.S.E.B, Electrical Major Section,
Kottayam East.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.B. Asokan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT
P.M. Punnachan,
Managing Partner,
Udaya Rubber Industries,
Parampuzha P.O.,
Kottayam
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. R.S. Kalkura)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in the file of O.P. Number 132/2003. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondents are the complainant respectively. This appeal prefers from the order directed to cancel Ext. A1 bill for Rs. 77,060/- The opposite party will fix a current charges for the month of April, 2003, taking in to account entries in Ext. A8 daily consumption of current register mentioned by the petitioner and issue a fresh bill which the petitioner is liable to pay. No interest is ordered to pay by the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- but no evidence has been adduced to prove that he has sustained loss or injury. So no compensation can be awarded. The opposite parties will also pay a cost of Rs. 750/- to the petitioner which can be adjusted in the future bills or paid directly. It also ordered to implement the order within 45 days from the date of its receipt.
In short, the complainant challenged the bill issued for Rs. 77,060/- dated 15.5.2003. Later an arithmetical mistake had been erupt in the aforesaid bill. It was revised to Rs. 68,222/- The complainant alleged that this bills are illegal and without follow any provisions of law . The complainant lodged a complaint and there was an inspection conducted in the premises of the complainant on 30.4.2003 and sent that the energy meter of the complainant was faulty and the fact was recorded in the meter reading register. The faulty meter was replaced on 20.5.2003 with a new meter with initial reading. There after the electric charge the period in which the meter was faulty ie. the April, 2003 was assessed as per Clause 31C of the CSEE to the tune of Rs. 77,060/- the said amount was arrived taking average reading of 12/02, 1/03 and 2/03. Later the average consumption in the month of 1/03, 2/03, and 3/03 were taken and bill was revised to Rs. 68,222/-. In the meantime the complainant filed the complaint and challenged the impugned bill. The Forum below recorded the evidence Ext. A1 bill dated. 5.5.2003 and Ext. A2, to Ext. A9 from the part of the complainant. The affidavit of the petitioner was also filed. The affidavit of Raji Abraham was filed and marked Ext. B1(calculation statement) and affidavit of the second opposite party is also filed. The Forum below raised 3 points for consideration.
1) Whether the petition is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? And
3) Relief and costs.
The Forum below heard both sides and perused the entire documents and taken a view that the complainant is succeeded in the points 1 and 2 in the dispute and in the circumstance the Forum below passed the impugned order and appellant/opposite party challenged this impugned order before this appellate Commission.
On this day, this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing. The Counsel for the appellant is present and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of Appeal Memorandum that the impugned order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the law and evidence. He submitted that the average consumption of the complaint was arised for the meter faulty period in April, 2003 as per Clause 31(c) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy. Since the arithmetical mistake had been appeared in the aforesaid bill and revised the above bill amount to Rs. 68,222/- He submitted that the opposite parties acted only as per the provisions of the conditions of supply of electrical energy alone. He prayed for set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below on the basis of a mere assumption and presumption.
We heard in detail, the counsel for the appellant perused the entire evidence available in the case records. It is clearly seeing that a mistake committed in the course of issuance of the energy bill to the complainant. The absent of respondent/complainant is quite excusable. We know the difficulty of the consumer/ complainant to appear before the commission on each and every postings. We concerned only evidence. As per the evidence we are not having any hesitation to upheld the order passed by the Forum below. It is strictly accordance with the law and evidence and it is legally sustainable. In other words and except cost ordered by the Forum below in favor to the complainant. It is only a question arised in this appeal for the consideration. Any other portion of the order is no way prejudicing the grievances of the appellant/opposite parties. The respondent/complainant is bound to pay the electrical energy charge for his total consumption of the energy. But only a question is that whether he is liable to pay the entire amount as per the bill issued by the appellants. We decided to modified the order portion and uphold the order except costs directed to pay by the opposite parties to the complainant.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. We set aside the cost of Rs. 750/- ordered to pay by the opposite parties to the complainant. Other portions of the order is hereby confirmed. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
