KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.203/08 JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.09 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Trivandrum Rep. by the Secretary. 2. The Asst.Engineer, -- APPELLANTS KSEB, Electrical Section, Ettumanoor, Korrayam. (By Adv.V.S.Vineethkumar) Vs. Ramesh Babu, Pazhuthundathil Veedu, -- RESPONDENT Peroor, Kottayam. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC.No.24/06 dated 30.7.08. Appellants are the opposite parties. The brief of the case is that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. He had taken a rice and flour mill and its premises on lease from one K.C.Mathew, Korattiyil on 8.8.03 as means of self employment for the livelihood of the petitioner, petitioner is paying the electricity charges without any default or delay according to the petitioner. The meter, which was installed in the premises of the petitioner, was not working properly at all times. The petitioner states that in the year of 2005, the old meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was replaced and a new electronic meter had been installed. On 267.8.06 the petitioner received an additional bill from the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.9751/- alleging the electricity charges due from the petitioner. The petitioner states that there was no evidence to show that the meter attached to the petitioner’s premises was faulty. He prays for cancellation of bill No. AA 190 506 dated 26.8.06 for an amount of Rs.9751/- and for refund of an amount of Rs.2176/- with compensation and costs. 2. The opposite party appeared and filed their written version and contended that the meter was partially stuck and has recorded lesser units. It has not recorded any units in the month of 2/01 and 3/01, so the meter was faulty from 2/01. So, the light meter was changed on 27.11.03 and an additional bill for short assessment issued to the petitioner as per the finding of the audit party. So according to them there is no deficiency of service on their part and petition is to be dismissed with their cost with cost. 3. The complainant filed their affidavit and produced 3 documents they are marked as Ext.A1 to A3 and opposite parties produced and marked Ext.B1 and B2. The Forum below stating a view that the opposite party has no case that meter was tested by an Electrical Inspector. Further more as Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. So, sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of 2 years from the date when such sum become first due here, from Ext.A2 it can be seen that the said bill is for a period from 2/01 to 10/03. So, after 2 years of the 1st due of the amount if it is not shown continuously as recoverable arrear it can only recoverable. So, we are of the opinion that issuance of the Ext.A1 without any finding of fault with meter provided by the law is clear deficiency of service. The result the forum below cancel the impugned bill for an amount of Rs.9751/- dated 26.8.06. There is no compensation or costs ordered. 4. The appellants prefers from this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the forum below. On this day this appeal came before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the order passed by the forum below is not accordance with the law and evidence and the order is not legally sustainable. This Commission examined all the evidence from the Lower Court Records and reached in a conclusion that the order passed by the Forum below is totally stipulated with the law and evidence and it is legally sustainable. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the forum below. It is the duty of the appellant to comply the formalities at the time of changing the meter it is defected whether preparing mahazer and forwarding to the expert Electrical Inspector. The appellant have no leagal right to take a unilateral decision. The appellant is only a party in the case. It is the bounden duty of the department of the Board to maintain correct records and issue bill time to time. It is also his duty to inspect and verify each and every connection of the consumers and verify whether the consumers are genuine or not. The appellant is allowing parties to enjoy the electricity connection without shifting or transferring the consent to the present owner or occupy of the building or premises. 5. Short assessment is nothing but a laches from the part of the operating and account staff of the Board. Suppose the audit party has not detect such error the board will be the looser. In the circumstance, this Commission is seeing any reason to accept the submission of the appellants. The order passed by the forum below is legally sustainable. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The points are answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER S/L | 
