KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 767/2006 JUDGMENT DATED:25-06-2010 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Circle, : APPELLANT Alappuzha. (By Adv: Sri.S.Balachandran) Vs. S.Lalitha, Dakshina, Thondankulangara, : RESPONDENT Alleppey. (By Adv:Sri.Narayan.R) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB authorities in OP.143/2004 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The bills issued by the appellants stands cancelled and the opposite party/appellant is also directed to pay cost of Rs.750/- to the complainant. 2. The matter related to the alleged spurt in the reading after replacement of the mechanical meter by the electronic meter. According to the complainant the same was below 150 units and after replacement it rose to 400 units. 3. On the other hand the opposite parties have contended that there is no defect with the meter. The connected load was 12005 watts and the complainant had an Air conditioner as well. It is also contended that the officials of the board inspected the premises and found dampening of the wall, which also would have contributed. 4. During the proceedings the complainant applied for inspection of the meter by the Electrical Inspector. The Electrical Inspector as per Ext.X1, on 6/5/2005 reported that the meter is faulty. The meter was replaced. Again the complainant alleged that the replaced meter is also faulty and the same was also sent for the Electrical Inspector. The Electrical Inspector reported that there is no defect with respect to the 2nd electronic meter installed. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.X1 and Exts.A1 to A5. 6. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the connected load of the complainant is 12005 watts and that he was using Air conditioner and 11 fans apart from other fittings included heater, washing machine etc. It was also contended that the officials of the board including the Deputy Chief Engineer had inspected the premises and found that there was no defect in the meter. 7. We find that the report of the electrical Inspector who inspected the meter as per the order of the Forum has to be given precedence over the alleged inspection by the officials of the board. Once the electrical Inspector has found that the meter is faulty there is no scope for further contenting that there was no defect with the meter. It is contended by the counsel that the meter might have become faulty at some time later at the time of the inspection by the electrical inspector. It is also pointed out that after replacement of the electronic meter also the complainant had alleged that the meter is defective. We find that the above contentions also are not sufficient to discard the report of the electrical Inspector who has found that the meter is faulty. The appropriate procedure for the opposite parties is to issue fresh bill after taking the average consumption after the replacement of the meter. The opposite parties also could have issued back assessment bills. There is no reason as to why the opposite parties did not resort to the above said statutory procedure. In the circumstances we find that there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum. The direction to pay cost of Rs.750/- is set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
