Kerala

Kasaragod

C.C.65/2006

A.K.Abdul Khader - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

Subash Bozz

30 Jun 2008

ORDER


.
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD
consumer case(CC) No. C.C.65/2006

A.K.Abdul Khader
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Secretary
Assistant Executive Engineer
The Assistant Engineer
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. A.K.Abdul Khader

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Secretary 2. Assistant Executive Engineer 3. The Assistant Engineer

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Subash Bozz

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. A.B.Nair



Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

D.o.F: 2/6/06 D.o.O:30/6/06 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.NO.65/06 Dated this, the 30th day of June 2008 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER A.K.Abdul Khader, S/o Kunhimahin Kutty, Kottachal House, Adhur PO, : Complainant Kasaragod. 1.Secretary, KSEB, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthaouram. 2. The Asst.Engineer,KSEB, : Opposite parties Badiadka , Kasaragod. 3. The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Section, Cherkala, Chengala, Po, Kasaragod. ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT: Shorn of all other averments and allegations, the complainant prays for an order of cancellation of the demand notice for Rs.18007/- issued in his concern M/s A.K.Wood Industries alleging to be short assessment for the period from 5/2004 to 10/04. According to the complainant, he is the consumer of electricity connection No.3391/BDK under the opposite parties. This is a wood industries registered under the SSI unit of the Industrial and Commerce Department. He was regularly paying electricity charges. While so he received the demand notice under dispute dtd.10/5/06 for Rs.18007/-. According to him he is not liable to pay the said amount. 2. Opposite parties filed version and contends that the power meter of the complainant’s concern was changed in Sept’2004 as the meter was recording low consumption. The new meter replaced was also faulty and hence it again replaced in October 2004. Subsequent consumption of the consumer was average 1647 units per month during the period of 6 months from November 2004 to April 2005. As such the consumer should have been subjected to back assessment for the period of 6 months prior to changing the meter from May 2004 to December 2004 @ 1647 units per month and the demand notice is issued after deducting the units already billed during the said period. There is no deficiency in service on their part. 3. The complainant has produced the Demand notice cum disconnection notice dtd.10/5/06 for Rs.18007/-. Opposite parties produced the copy of the report of AG’s audit party dtd.5/1/06 and the meter reading register extract of the complainant’s firm. 4. The Opposite parties have no case that there is tampering of meter by the complainant. The meter reader of the opposite parties inspect the premises every month and issuing the bills as per the meter readings. The meter reading register for the period from 4/2000 to 7/2006 is also does not reflects any considerable decrease during the disputed period. Further in an industrial concern the consumption of electricity may vary depending upon a number of factors like the production, marketing and availability of raw materials etc. Regulation 42(1) of the KSE Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 stipulates that the amount of energy supplied to a consumer will be ascertained by means of meter or meters installed and kept in good condition by the Board. 5. The opposite parties have not produced any report regarding the correctness of the meter replaced. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Y.N.Gupta vs. DESU(1993(1)CPJ 27(NC) has held that ‘ it is the duty and obligation of the licensee to maintain and check the meter’. So a consumer shall not be burdened with additional demands for a breech of duty on the part of the opposite parties and it amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, we allow the complaint and opposite parties are directed to cancel the demand notice dtd.10/5/06 for Rs.18007/-. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as the cost of the proceedings. Time for compliance of the order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which on application by the complainant appropriate proceedings will be initiated U/S 25 & 27 of C.P.Act. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Documents of the complainant: Dt.10/5/06-Demand notice cum disconnection notice . Documents of the opposite parties: 1.Dt.5/1/06-Copy of AG’s Audit report 2.Meter reading register extract Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ Senior Superintendent




......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.Ramadevi