<br /> D.o.F: 22/2/06<br /> D.o.O: 19/6/08<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD<br /> CC.NO.19/06<br /> Dated this, the 19th day of June 2008<br /> PRESENT:<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> 1.Jayadas.A(now dead)<br /> Granite Udyog, <br /> Kinfra Industries Park,Seethangoli,<br /> Kasaragod. <br /> 2.Bindu, : Complainant<br /> W/o Jayadas A,<br /> R/at Vivekananda Nagar,<br /> Mannipady,Kudlu,Kasaragod.<br /> <br /> 1. Secretary, KSEB,<br /> Vaiduthi Bhavan,Pattom,<br /> Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 2. The Asst.Engineer, : Opposite parties<br /> KSEB, Electrical Section,<br /> Nellikunnu,Kasaragod. <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT;<br /> <br /> The complainant No.2 here in is the wife of complainant No.1 in whose name the electricity consumer No.13556 is standing. Complainant No.1 expired during the pendency of this proceeding and hence complainant No.2 was impleaded.<br /> 2. The factual matrix of the case is that an additional bill for Rs.51087 is served on the complainant’s firm alleging that one of the terminal leading to the CT meter installed in the premises of the consumer’s Granite factory registered under S.S.I unit is found not working at the time of inspection by the APT squad of the opposite party. The bill was based on the average 1/3rd consumption for <br /> <br /> the previous six months to the inspection. This complaint is against the issuance of the said bill dtd.4/2/06 for Rs.51087/-.<br /> 3. Opposite party contends in their version that the additional bill is issued since at the time of inspection by Anti Power Theft Squad in the premises of the complainant’s factory it is found that one phase connected to the CT meter was not working and the additional bill is issued for the unassessed 1/3rd unit for the last 6 months. The meter was changed subsequently on 11/1/06.<br /> 4. Whether the bill issued is legally sustainable or not is the only question to be decided in this case.<br /> 5. Complainant produced Exts.A1 to A4 and opposite party produced Ext.B1. Arguments of both sides heard and the records perused.<br /> 6. Counsel for the complainant placed reliance on the decision reported in 2006(3) KLT 465 and argued that if the Board wants to raise a bill on the plea that it is a defective meter, it is for the board to take the meter from the premises of the consumer and also raise a bill in accordance with the provision of the Act after the test report obtained from the Electrical Inspector.<br /> 7. Counsel for opposite party placed reliance on the decision reported in 1996(2)CPR 33 rendered by Rajasthan SCDRC and pleaded that the non working of one phase of meter is not an inherent defect of the meter and hence the procedures prescribed for the defective meter is not applicable in this case.<br /> We fully agree with the arguments of both counsels.<br /> 8. But the adjustment bill issued is not sustainable on the following grounds.<br /> <br /> (i) Opposite party has no case of any tampering of meter by the complainant.<br /> (ii) The adjustment bill issued is not for actual consumption.<br /> (iii) Eventhough counsel for opposite party strenuously argued that there is no defect in meter and the defect is only in wiring in Ext.B1, the Asst.Engineer of APT Squad recommends to charge the consumption 1.5 times than recorded till the faulty meter is changed . This would go to show that the meter was faulty at the time of inspection of APT squad..<br /> <br /> K.S.E.Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 Regulation 42 says 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 . As held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1993(1)CPJ 27(NC). It is the duty of the licensee to maintain and check the meter. The consumer shall not be saddled for the lapse of opposite party in replacing the faulty meter immediately on occurring the fault.<br /> Opposite party has no case that the consumer is a defaulter of periodical payments. The act of issuing an adjustment bill based on the reading of a malfunctioning meter without basing on the actual consumption is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. <br /> Therefore, we allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to cancel the additional bill dtd.4/2/06 for Rs.51087/-. Opposite party further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for the compliance is 30 days form the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which on application by the complainant proceedings will be initiated U/S 25 & 27 of the C.P.Act.<br /> Sd/ sd/ sd/<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Exts:<br /> A1-4/2/06-Letter issued by complainant to OP.2<br /> A3-10/2/06- -do-<br /> A2,A4, A4(a) to A4(h)- electricity bills<br /> B1-28/12/05-copy of inspection report of APTS of KSEB<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/ Sd/ Sd/<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> eva/ <br /> /Forwarded by Order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br />