O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner filed on 9..5..2008 is as follows: Petitioner is the supervisor of one Sureshkumar, who is a consumer of the opposite party. Sureshkumar is the absolute owner of 45 cents of land and building their in. According to the petitioner said Sureshkumar is employed in USA. During the time when he stays in India he use the residential building owned by him. The electric connection to the building of Suresh Kumar is in his name and he is regularly paying bills issued to him. During the 3rd week of April 2008. 4th opposite party visited the premises of the Suresh Kumar and stated that the meter attached to the premises of consumer is not working properly. Accordingly the opposite party on 25..4..2008 they -2- connected a parallel meter purporting to be correct to the existing meter. Opposite party on 30..4..2008 without any basis issued a bill for an amount of Rs. 62,750/- to the petitioner. According to the petitioner bill issued to the consumer is not legal and act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. So, petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill Dtd: 19..4..2008 for an amount of Rs. 62,780/- and other incidental reliefs. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner is not a consumer of opposite party. Consumer No. 5883 stands in the name of P.K. Prabhakaran. Opposite party denied the averment of the petitioner with regard to the supervision of the property of Sureshkumar. According to the opposite party earlierly the connection was under LT VII A Tariff and connection is effected for the purpose of Cable T.V transmission and is functioned by Lijumon S., the present complainant. 4th opposite party visited the premises on April 2008 and while taking reading on the meter it is seen that the reading is 61103. The last meter reading was taken on 8/06 and the reading at that time is 5119 units. Seeing the huge consumption, recorded for 20 months, in order to verify the correctness a parallel meter was connected. The parallel meter shows a consumption of 51 units. Hence the faulty meter was replaced with a new one with initial reading 3. According to the opposite party bill was issued based on the record consumption on the parallel meter. Bill issued is legal and proper. So the opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs. -3- Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced power of attorney issued by Sureshkumar to the petitioner and the said document was not mentioned in the affidavit and not marked. The disputed bill dtd: 19..4..2008 is produced and said document is marked as Ext. A4. In Ext. A4 it is stated that the bill is issued by taking the parallel meter average shown in the parallel meter. Even though the opposite party has definite case that the consumer No. 5883 is in the name of one P.K Prabhakaran they has not produced any document to prove the same. So opposite party’s contention that the registered consumer with vide consumer No. 5883 is in the name of P.K. Prabhakaran will not stand. Admittedly the meter of the petitioner was faulty. According to the opposite party the fault with meter was detected on 17..4..2008. Opposite party averred in their affidavit that meter reading register is produced before the forum but the same is not produced. Copy of relevant page of meter reading concerning consumer No. 1031 is produced and the same is not marked. From the averment in the version and affidavit it can be seen that the disputed bill is issued by taking the average consumption shown in the parallel meter. As per regulation 33 (2) of conditions of supply 2005. If the board is unable to raise a bill meter based on meter reading due to the non recording or mal functioning of the meter the board shall issue a bill based on the previous six months average consumption. In such cases the meter shall replaced within one month. If the average consumption for the previous six months can not be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason the consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding 3 months after replacing the faulty meter. Here the board has not produced any document to prove that the previous average cannot be taken. So, in our view issuance of bill for -4- the meter faulty period is without following Regulation 33 (2) of conditions of supply 2005. The said act of opposite party amount to clear deficiency in service . So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is allowed. Bill Dtd: 19..4..2008 for an amount of Rs. 62,750/- is cancelled. Opposite party shall issue a fresh bill for the meter faulty period in accordance with regulation 33 (2) of conditions of supply 2005. Considering fact and circumstances of case no cost and compensation is ordered. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of July, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner: Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 26..5..2006 Ext. A2: Bill Dtd; 26..5..2007 Ext. A3: Bill Dtd: 27..2..2008 Ext. A4: Bill Dtd: 19..4..2008 Ext. A5: Letter Dtd: 30..4..2008 Documents for the Opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of calculation register. By Order,
| HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | |