KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.6/2007
JUDGMENT DATED 2.2.2011
PRESENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
1. Asst.Executive Engineer,
Varappuzha Electrical Section
KSEB. Varappuzha P.O,
Ernakulam.
2. KSEBVyudhuthi Bhavan, -- APPELLANTS
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
Reptd. by its Secretary.
(By Adv.S.Balachandran)
Vs.
S.N.D.P.Yogam,
Neerikode Sakha, No.1126,
Neerikodu P.O, Ernakulam
Reptd. by its President. -- RESPONDENT
N.A.Sathyan, son of Achukutty,
Nedukapilly Veedu,
Neerikodu, Ernakulam.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.325/06 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/KSEB in issuing bill dated 1.2.06 for Rs.2584/- towards electricity charge. It was alleged that the complainant/consumer has not consumed so much of energy for issuance of the bill for Rs.2584/-. Thus, the complainant prayed for cancellation of the said bill.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the impugned bill for Rs.2,584/- was issued based on the electricity consumption recorded by the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer. It was also contended that there was no fault to the said energy meter and that the opposite party/KSEB is justified in demanding the electricity charge for Rs.2,584/- based on the consumption recorded by the energy meter. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Before the Forum below A1 to A6 and B1 to B4 documents were produced from the side of the parties to the said complaint in CC.325/06. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 30th October 2006 allowing the complaint and cancelling the impugned bill issued on 1.2.06 for Rs.2,584/-. The opposite party/KSEB was also directed to issue fresh bill to the complainant for the disputed period based on the average consumption for 4 months before and after the disputed bill. It is against the said order the present appeal is preferred.
4. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the 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 further submitted that there was no case for the complainant that the meter installed at his premises was defective. Thus, the appellants/opposite parties justified their action in issuing the impugned bill based on the consumption of energy recorded in the energy meter. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
5.There is no dispute that the appellants/opposite parties issued the impugned electricity bill dated 1.2.06 for Rs.2,584/-. Admittedly, the said bill was issued based on the consumption of electrical energy recorded by the energy meter which was installed at the premises of the respondent/complainant (consumer). It is true that the complainant’s consumption of energy was about 50 units bimonthly. But, as per the impugned bill for the said particular period the energy consumption was 306 units. There is no case for the complaint that the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer was defective. It is also to be noted that the complainant had not taken any steps to test the energy meter regarding the recording of consumption of energy. The available evidence on record would establish the fact that the energy meter was defect free. So, the consumption of energy recorded by the said energy meter is to be accepted.
6. The Forum below failed to consider the defect free nature of the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer. The Forum below has also failed to take into consideration the real fact that the impugned bill dated 1.2.06 was issued on the strength of the consumption of energy recorded by the energy meter. The Forum below has only taken into consideration the normal consumption of energy by the complainant. But, the Forum below has forgotten the liability of the complainant/consumer to pay the energy charges based on the consumption of energy recorded by the energy meter which is defect free. So, the appellants/opposite parties are to be justified in issuing the impugned energy bill for Rs.2,584/- based on the consumption of energy recorded by the aforesaid defect free energy meter. If that be so, the Forum below cannot be justified in cancelling the impugned bill dated 1.2.06.
7. Appellants/opposite parties have got a case that there occurred leakage of electrical energy on account of the defect in the wiring. The aforesaid defective wiring has been detected by the Sub Engineer on his inspection dated 17.2.06. Ext.B1 is the report submitted by the Sub Engineer. It was the duty of the complainant/consumer to keep the wiring installation at his premises in a proper condition. It is also reported by the opposite party that there was no provision or mechanism provided by the consumer to prevent leakage of electricity. Whether the excessive consumption of energy was due to leakage of electricity or on account of excessive consumption of energy by the consumer is not a criterion in determining the energy charges. It is to be noted that the complainant/consumer is legally bound to pay the electricity charges based on the consumption of electrical energy recorded by the energy meter which is in a defect free condition. Whatever may be the reason for the excessive consumption, the complainant/consumer is bound to pay the energy charges based on the consumption of energy provided the energy meter is a defect free meter. In the present case on hand, the meter was defect free. In such a situation, the complainant/consumer was legally bound to pay the energy charge covered by the impugned bill dated 1.2.06.
8. The forgoing discussions and the findings thereon would make it clear that the Forum below has gone wrong in cancelling the impugned bill dated 1/2/06. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Hence, we do so.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.10.06 is set aside. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
