KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.164/03 JUDGMENT DATED 25.5.2010 PRESENTSMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER C.T.Thomas, Chazhisseril Rubbers, Parampuzha, -- APPELLANT Perumbaikkadu.P.O Kottayam. (By Adv.Kallambalam S.Sreekumar) Vs. 1. Secretary, KSE Board, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Asst.Executive Engineer, -- RESPONDENTS. Electrical Major Section, Gandhi Nagar, Kottayam. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 14th January 2003 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.568/01. Appellant was the complainant and respondents 1 and 2 were the opposite parties in the said complaint in OP.568/01. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing adjustment bill (Ext.A2) for Rs.1,16,566/- and prayed for cancellation of the aforesaid bill. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that A2 bill for Rs. 1,16,566/- was issued based on the short assessment of energy detected on surprise inspection conducted by the special squad on 18.9.01 and that the said bill was issued based on the short assessment. So, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing the A2 adjustment bill dated 8.10.01. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant and the second opposite party filed proof affidavit. Exts.A1to A3 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and B1 site mahazer on the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint in OP.568/01. Hence the present appeal. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted is arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that there was no fault on the part of the appellant/complainant and that he paid the amounts covered by the energy bills and that the impugned A2 bill was issued without any basis. He also relied on the subsequent energy bills which are produced along with this appeal and argued for the position there was no excess consumption of energy for the period from February 2000 to August 2001 warranting issuance of A2 adjustment bill for Rs.1,16,566/-. Thus, the appellant prayed for allowing the complaint in OP.568/01 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He much relied on Ext.B1 site mahazer dated 18.9.2001 prepared by the Sub Engineer, Gandhi Nagar, Major Section, KSEB and argued for the position that there occurred short assessment of the energy actually consumed by the appellant/complainant and thereby justified the action of the opposite parties in issuing A2 short assessment bill for Rs.1,16,566/-. 4. The points that arise for consideration are :- 1. Whether the appellant/complainant has succeeded in establishing the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing Ext. A2 short assessment bill dated 8.10.01 for Rs.1,16,566/-? 2. Whether the Forum below can be justified in dismissing the complaint in OP.568/01 vide impugned order dated 14th January 2003? 5. POINTS 1 & 2:- There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant is a consumer of electrical energy with Consumer No.5760/APR. He is running an industrial unit by the name and style Chazhisseril Rubbers. The appellant’s industrial unit is functioning within the territorial limits of Electrical Major Section, Gandhi Nagar. The second respondent/second opposite party is the Asst.Executive Engineer of Electrical Major Section, Gandhi Nagar. Admittedly, in the month of February 2000 3 phase CT meter was installed in the premises of the industrial unit of the appellant/complainant and based on the readings recorded by the said CT meter, opposite parties have issued energy bills to the appellant/complainant and that the appellant/complainant has been remitting the amounts covered by those energy bills. 6. The appellant/complainant has no dispute that there was an inspection of the premises of the appellant’s Industrial unit by the officials of the KSEB. They attached to Electrical Major Section, Gandhi Nagar and that the said inspection was conducted on 18.9.01. Evidencing the said inspection, a site mahazer was prepared by the Sub Engineer, T.K.Divakaran, of the Electrical Major Section, Gandhi Nagar. Ext.B1 is photocopy of the said site mahazer dated 18.9.01. The appellant/complainant has also acknowledged acceptance of copy of the said mahazer with an endorsement signed by him. The said mahazer was also signed by a witness and the person who prepared the same. The appellant/complainant has no dispute regarding the inspection conducted on 18.9.01 and signing of the said mahazer by him. B1 site mahazer would show that on inspection it was detected that the connection to the CT meter was not properly given. It was found that R phase and B phase of the CT meter were properly connected and Y phase was connected in the reverse direction and thereby the disk of the CT meter at Y phase has been rotating in the reverse direction. It is also mentioned in B1 mahazer that the aforesaid defect was convinced to C.T.Thomas (appellant/complainant), the proprietor of the industrial unit by name Chazhisseril Rubbers. 7. On the basis of B1 site mahazer and the improper working of the CT meter, the opposite parties issued A2 short assessment bill dated 8.10.01 for Rs.1,16,566/-. The opposite parties had also issued A1 letter dated 15.10.01 and A3 calculation statement for the period from February 2000 to August 2001. In A1 letter, it has been specifically stated that A2 bill is issued as short assessment of energy charges due to reversal of current coil terminal leads for the period from February 2000 to August 2001. In A1 letter it was also referred to about the inspection conducted by the special squad at the premises of the consumer C.T.Thomas on 18.9.01. It was detailed in A1 letter that due to the improper installation of the CT meter, only 1/3 of the actual consumption was recorded by the CT meter. Hence, the adjustment bill for Rs.1,16,566/- has been prepared and issued to the consumer. In A3 calculation statement all the details regarding the actual consumption, recorded consumption and the amount already remitted by the consumer and the amount to be remitted for the short assessment are given. Thus, A3 calculation statement would show as to how the amount of Rs.1,16,566/- was arrived at, and issued A2 short assessment bill. 8. The complainant in OP.568/01 filed proof affidavit before the Forum below. In the said affidavit dated 24th October 2001 the complainant/consumer (appellant) categorically admitted the fact that on 18.9.01 the special squad from KSEB inspected his premises and on the basis of the report of the special squad the disputed bill for Rs.1,16,566/- is served upon him. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that he has not used so much of energy warranting issuance of such an adjustment bill for Rs,1,16,566/-. In the said affidavit the appellant/complainant has also admitted the fact that during February 2000 a CT meter was installed at the premises of his industrial unit. The complainant/consumer has also admitted the acceptance of A2 bill dated 8.10.01 for Rs.1,16,566/-. According to the complainant/consumer the finding of the opposite parties that due to the improper installation the CT meter had only recorded 1/3 of the actual consumption is without any basis and the additional bill issued is also baseless. It is also the case of the complainant that he cannot be made liable for the improper connections given to the CT meter because the entire installation work and connections to the meter were done by the lineman attached to the second opposite party/Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Gandhi Nagar, Kottayam. 9. The second opposite party/Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Gandhi Nagar has also filed affidavit in support of the contentions adopted by the opposite parties. In the affidavit filed by the second opposite party he has stated about the possibility for tampering with the terminal connections and seal of the CT meter. But, the aforesaid averments in the affidavit filed by the second opposite party cannot be believed or accepted. It is to be noted that in B1 site mahazer, there is no whisper about the tampering of the CT meter by the complainant/consumer. There is also no case for the special squad that the CT meter was tampered at any point. But, the site mahazer would only show that the connections to the CT meter were given in an improper way ie; the R phase and B phase were properly connected and Y phase was connected in the reverse direction and thereby the disk at the Y phase of the CT meter was rotating in the reverse direction. So, the finding of the opposite parties that the actual consumption of energy was not recorded by the energy meter and only one third of the actual consumption was recorded by the CT meter can be accepted. No contra evidence is forthcoming from the side of the complainant. The fact that only one third of the actual consumption was recorded by the CT meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer is established. It is also established that the complainant/consumer was not responsible for the aforesaid non recording of the actual consumption by the CT meter. It can very safely be concluded that the non recording of the actual consumption was due to the improper installation of the CT meter by the officials of KSEB. It can also be concluded that the connections to the CT meter were not given properly. This circumstance would in turn establish the fact that there was no defect for the CT meter. But, in fact the non recording of the consumption by CT meter was only due to the improper and irregular giving of the connections to the CT meter. So, the opposite party/KSEB was at liberty to issue short assessment bill by way of additional bill for the escaped energy which was actually consumed by the complainant/consumer. If that be so, the appellant/complainant consumer was bound to pay the adjustment bill for Rs.1,16,566/-. 10. The appellant/complainant is perfectly justified in adopting the stand that there was no fault on his part and that the CT meter failed to record the actual consumption only due to the lapse or negligence on the part of the officials of KSEB. But, the appellant/complainant being the consumer is legally bound to pay the energy charges for the electrical energy actually consumed by him. The appellant/complainant as consumer has executed an agreement with the opposite party/KSEB agreeing to pay the energy charges for the energy actually consumed by him. The materials available on record would establish the fact that there was short assessment of the energy consumed by the complainant/consumer from February 2000 to August 2001. Ext.A3 calculation statement would give clear picture as to how the short assessment bill for Rs.1,16,566/- was issued. The opposite party/KSEB has only claimed the energy charges for the energy actually consumed by the complainant/consumer. It is to be noted that no surcharge in the Form of penal interest or other penal charge has been demanded by the opposite parties. So, the appellant/complainant is bound to pay the amount covered by A2 short assessment bill. The request of the appellant/complainant to get A2 short assessment bill cancelled cannot be allowed. The Forum below is perfectly justified in dismissing the complaint in OP.568/01. We do not find any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The present appeal deserves dismissal. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 14.1.03 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.568/01 is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER | 
