SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is filed for resumption of supply, reaccounting of rates from 1993 November and compensation and cost. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The reading of the meter which was installed in the premises of the complainant was faulty from 1993 onwards. Due to the irregular supply of energy and dissident attitude of opp.parties, the complainant’s casting foundry could not achieve the target. The situation led to the default in payment of his Bank loan and energy charges of Rs.18247/- as per notice dated 28.2.2003. The complainant approached the officials of opp.party for permission to remit the amount in instalments but yielded no result. The complainant approached the opp.parties for lesser connected load of 8 HP with 3 phase connection. It was also rejected alleging reason of technical irregularity and cost of installation. The complainant served with a notice for payment of Rs.64767/- dated 4.8.2004 vide No.971 and Revenue Recovery proceedings were stated against the complainant. The energy charges presently demanded is illegal, irregular and improper. Fault in the meter reading was brought to the notice of the Electrical Inspectorate authorities who visited the spot on 19.7.2004 and prepared the Mahazar. The report would read that there was irregular reading with in conceivable rating and reading was not dependable. The enhancement from Rs.18247 to the present notice is absurd is only liable to pay Rs.18247/- The energy connection installed in 1993 November and from that period onwards the meter was faulty due to the irregular installation by the K.S.E Board . The outgoing connection from the 3 phase connection was through single phase supply and the outlet through single phase supply led to doubted reading an actual consumption with variable charges on energy and connected load. This was a latent error with Board in their installation to which the petitioner had no access. The installation remained exclusively with Board and it had to be their duty. They were delinquent in metering such an installation or in making the necessary alteration in time Hence doubted charges of energy used had to be paid on doubted reading and the entire billing went into error. This was observed and the matter was taken up by Inspectorate of Electricity on application of the complainant. Mahazar was prepared on such observation and a copy of the same was served to the complainant As per inspection and mahazor every bill so far served is faulty and is to be setaside. No energy charges due to the complainant’s consumer No.132/81. The complainant had paid charges in excess and orders are to be had to reaccount the entire bills from 1993 November till date to fix the liability. 25 calls put together in spite of this mistake exceeding the period of limitation of 6 months The complainant had resorted to apply for rewiring to reduce the energy consumption to suit with the work load and connected load and upon sanction the rewiring has had. Even after rewiring the charges were not reduced or rearranged in time with connected load. The fee for rewiring also paid for no benefit to the complainant. The supply was disconnected on 28.7.2002 . The irresponsible act of opp.parties led to a total lay off labour and to a loss of Rs.1000/- per day . The total loss is estimated as Rs. 9 lakhs . The opp.parties are bound to compensate the loss and revenue supply with facility for clearance of arrears of 18,247/-. The complainant is ready to pay the sum as per notice in instalments of Rs.1000/- per month along with charges occure. Hence the complainant prayed for resumption of supply, for relief of re-accounting of bills from 1993 onwards, compensation of 9 lakhs rupees re-adjustment to ½ of the double charges and the bills paid and balance reaccounted. The charges of energy beyond 6 months are to be set off, compensation to be provided and cost to be awarded. The opp.party filed version contending interalia that the allegation in the complaint are false and cooked up stories. The disconnection affected on 28.7.2002 due to the non payment of electrical charges and the same was not disputed by the complainant. Opp.party has issued dismantling notice on 28.2.03 showing the arrears as Rs.18,247/- . The Adalath on 16.12.2002 considered the case and decided to allow the complainant to remit the arrears in instalments with reduced interest rate. It was also agreed that the connected load can be reduced on submission of the revised Completion. Report for that purpose. The complainant did not act as per the decision taken by the Adalath. Therefore connected load remained the same. The complainant had not presented the case before the next adalath. The complainant was given sufficient time to remit the arrears. But he was failed to do so. 2nd opp.party dismantled the service on 1/7/04 issued final notice as per rules and initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings for the final bill for Rs.64767/- dated 4..8.04 The cost of meter which could not taken from the premises of complainant also was added to the actual bill for consumption. The statement of the complainant that the meter was faulty is not true. On 19.7.2004 based on the complaint from the side of complainant to the District Electrical Inspector, the meter was inspected and found that it was in good working condition. The final bill was based on the final recorded reading of the meter and the complainant is bound to remit the amount with upto date interest. The loss due to the non - availability of power is not due to any fault from the side of opp.party. No instalment facility can be given by the opp.parties as Revenue Recovery Action is already initiated. The action taken to realize the amount from the Consumers does not amount to deficiency in service. The complainant came before the Forum with unclean hands and suppressing material facts. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. The complainant filed affidavit. PW.1 and 2 examined. Ext. P1 to P9 were marked. Opp.parties filed affidavit. DW.1 examined. Ext. D1 marked The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties 2. Compensation and costs. Points 1 and 2 There is no contention about the fact that complainant is a consumer of opp.parties. Admitted by both parties that the complainant is a defaulter in payment of bills. As per version of opp.parties disconnection was effected on 28.7.2002. This fact was not challenged by the complainant. The complainant has stated that he had approached the officials of opp.party for permission to remit the amount in instalments but yielded no result. Opp.parties in their version stated that the Adalath on 16.12.02 considered the complainant’s case and decided to allow the complainant to remit arrears in instalments along with interest at the reduced rate. The opp.parties challenged the allegation that the application by the complainant for reduction of connected load was not considered. They have stated that it was also agreed that the connected load can be reduced on submission of revised completion report. The complainant did not act upon the decision of Adalath. Simple reduction of connected load, keeping all the electricity operated machines as such in the workshop is strange and not allowable as per rules. Ext. P7 and P8 are documents submitted to prove the remittance of charges by the complainant for wiring permission. But no documents produced by the complainant to prove the submission of revised completion report from a licensed wiring contractor. The opp.parties have every right to disconnect electric supply of the complainant as he had defaulted in payment of bills and the complainant is bound to pay the arrears. On perusal of documents it is clear that sufficient opportunities were given to the complainant and a lenient attitude was taken by the opp.parties towards the complainant’s case. The main contention of the complainant is that the meter was faulty from the beginning itself. But no evidence was submitted to prove that the meter was faulty. It is mentioned in the letter sent by Electrical Inspector to the complainant {Ext.P6] that inspection was conducted on 19.7.2004 on application of the complainant dated 8.7.2004 . It is clearly stated by the Electrical Inspector in Ext. P6 that the meter was sent for testing at Metre testing and standards laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram and reported that percentage errors found in the energy meter on testing at various loads are within the permissible error limits. While deposition PW.2 has stated that ‘usual procedure is to segregate light and power. In this case power meter’s II phase is given as input of the light meter. So there will be duel metering’ DW.1 has stated in his deposition that ‘3 phase connection outgoing H rjr\rk\ single phase Sh]k rHdjulH doubled Lldjh\h; ed\S, reading H iGp\Pri\ Kn\mldkA light meter sRy double igkA From these depositions we could understand that there was error in the system of Electric connection. The complainant himself stated in his complaint and affidavit that electric connection in his premises was granted on 1993 itself. The complainant has lodged the complaint about fault in meter only on 8.7.04 and only about 2 years after the disconnection and after the dismantling. He had not submitted the complaint even in the Adalath or at the time of dismantling notice. The Electrical wiring in his premises was done under the instruction of the complainant himself by a Licensed Electrical wireman and the connection was granted by the Electricity Board authorities. So the complainant also is responsible for the error in the system of Electric connection. The reason for his default in payment of bills was not on the basis of this allegation. Hence no compensation can be claimed for the lay off in the complainants casting foundry. The complainant consumed energy only upto the disconnection. So he is only liable to pay the bills only upto the date of disconnection. The arrears as per the bills upto that period was Rs.12852/-. The complainant is bound to pay only that amount along with interest. We have perused the documents in detail. Heard both sides. We are of the view that the complainant should be granted with an opportunity to remit the arrears and to reinstate work in his casting foundry In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The opp.parties are directed to resume Electric connection on payment of 50% of the arrear amount of energy charges as on 28.7.2002, the date on which the disconnection is effected along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum for that amount from the date of disconnection till the date of payment. The balance 50% and interest at the same rate till the date of payment is to be paid within 3 months from the date of reconnection. The opp.parties are further directed to reduce connected load on submission of completion report of wiring for that purpose as per rules. In these circumstance we are not inclined to allow compensation and cost. Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Raveendran Pillai PW.2. – P.N. Veena List of documents for the complainant P1. – Copy of notice dated 4.8.2004 P2. – Notice dated 28.2.2003 P3. – Petition filed before adalath P4. – R.R. proceeding notice. P5. – Order copy of Electrical Inspectorate P6. – Bills P7. – Rewiring permission receipt P8. –Interim receipt No.284 P9. – Copy of R.R. proceeding declaration List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – G. Ajayakumar List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Attendance in Adalath | 
