D.o.F; 11/09/06<br /> D.o.O: 25/7/08<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD<br /> CC.NO.101/06 <br /> Dated this, the 25th day of July 2008 <br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> B.Janardhanan,<br /> S/o Doomappa Poojary,<br /> Proprietor, Ballur Rice Mill, : Complainant<br /> Po. Bekur, Via.Uppala.<br /> (Adv.Srikanta Shetty.K)<br /> <br /> 1. Regional Audit Officer,<br /> Electrical Circle,KSEB,<br /> Kasaragod. : Opposite parties<br /> 2. Asst.Executive Engineer,<br /> Electrical Sub Division,KSEB,Uppala.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> The allegation of the complainant Janardhanan is that in his rice mill which he is running under self employment for livelihood the opposite parties issued two bills both are dtd.3/7/06 for Rs.14488/- and Rs.10960/-. Janardhanan caused lawyer notice seeking the details and opposite party issued reply stating that the bills are issued as per calculation of Regional Audit Officer Electric Circle KSEB Kasaragod who found the meter faulty during 5/04 to 9/04 and for the period 4/05 to 6/05. According to Janardhanan the bills are not in conformity with the terms and conditions of KSEB. Hence the bills issued are legally not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 2. In reply to the complaint the opposite parties contended that the Secretary, KSEB is to be sued and hence petition is bad for non –joinder of necessary parties. Further contention is that the power meter found defective and hence it changed on 4/7/04 and the power meter again found faulty and it was again changed on 3/10/05. But the bill was not issued for faulty period by over sight and the same was found at the time of auditing . Hence as per conditions of supply an average 3 months from 11/04 to 1/05 after changing the meter was taken and it came to 623 units and assessed for faulty period from 5/04 to 9/04. The unit price was 3.25ps at that time and in total , consumer is liable to pay Rs.10960/- after deducting the amount paid by him. After taking the previous average for the period 4/05 to 6/05 for the faulty period and taking average as 685 units bill issued for the period from 4/05 to 6/05 for Rs.14448/-. Hence the bills are legal and Janardhanan is liable to pay the said bills.<br /> <br /> 3. Janardhanan filed affidavit in support of his contention and Exts.A1 to A23 marked. On the side of opposite parties Sri.NandaKumar, Asst .Executive Engineer KSEB Uppala filed affidavit in support of their contention. Ext.B1 is marked on their side. Both counsels were argued and the documents scrutinized carefully.<br /> <br /> 4. The contention of opposite parties that the Secretary, KSEB is to be sued and hence complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party is not acceptable in view of the fact that he is not a necessary party as per Consumer Protection Act and Rules. Further Order XXIX Rule 1&2 of Code of Civil Procedure which deals with the suit by or against Corporation, Board etc are not applicable to the proceedings before Consumer For a.<br /> <br /> 5. The contention that the demand notices dtd.3/7/06 for the period from 5/04 to 9/04 and 4/05 to 6/05 are issued for the period during the meter was faulty and it was issued taking the average consumption for the succeeding and preceding 3 months respectively are not sustainable in view of Regulation 42 of the KSEB and Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. 42(1) says that the amount of energy supplied to a consumer will be ascertained by means of meter or meters installed and kept in good conditions by the board. <br /> <br /> 6. Further Hon’ble NCDRC in the judgment reported in III 1993 CPJ 27(NC) has held that it is the duty and obligation of licensee to maintain and check the meter. Moreover the Hon’ble National Disputes Redressal Commission further held in the case reported in III(1993)CPJ 370(NC) that raising bills without actual meter readings and claiming arrears without details constitute deficiency in service.<br /> Therefore in view of the above reasons we hold that the act of issuing demand notices quoting amounts which are not in conformity with the actual usage amounts to deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are directed to cancel the bills dtd.3/7/06 for Rs.10960/- and Rs.14448/- issued to Janardhanan. The amount of Rs.5000/- already deposited by Janardhanan before the opposite party No.2 shall be adjusted to the future bills served on Janardhanan in his firm with consumer No.6300 of Uppala. But in the circumstances there is no order as to costs. Time for compliance of this order is 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of order.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT.<br /> Exts.<br /> A1- to A21-Electricity bills and receipts.<br /> A22-8/8/06-Registered notice<br /> A23-16/8/06-Reply sent by OP.No.2<br /> B1-Copy of spot billing register<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> eva/ <br />