Case of the petitioners is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party electricity board with vide consumer No. 8633. Petitioner is conducting floor mill, with SSI registration, as a means of his livelihood. According to the petitioner electric connection was given to him after conducting proper inspection and satisfaction of the opposite party. Since day light is there no seperate light is needed for the petitioner. So, no light meter along with light point was installed at the premises of the petitioner. According to the petitioner he is regularly remitting the bill amount as per the demand of the opposite party. On 21..4..2008 petitioner was served with a bill for an amount of Rs. 17150/-. According to the petitioner issuance of the said bill is not illegal and is clear deficiency of service. So, petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill dtd. 21..4..2008 and he seeks a direction of the -2- Forum to not to disconnect of the electric connection of the petitioner and he prays Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party apart from the power point a seperate light point is necessary for the petitioners premises. The connected load of the consumer is 7.46 KW. As per law all industrial consumers shall segragate the light load and power load and metered seperately. Audit wing of the opposite party find the said abnormality and the bill was issued as per their direction and according to them there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and costs. Evidence in this case consists affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced disputed demand notice bill dated 21..4..2008 for an amount of Rs. 17150/- and said document is marked as Ext. A2. In Ext. A2 reason for the demand is stated as light load not segregated. In the present case there is no site inspection done by the opposite party. No mahazar prepared further more there is nothing to prove that the light load and power load are metered by same meter. The officials of the opposite party has a bounden duty to inspect the premises and give appropriate direction for segregation before giving connection to the consumer. Further more if the -3- case of the opposite party is believed then by non segregation the petitioner had forced to remit electrical charges for the light point consumption in a greater tariff and by the said act opposite party is gained and as such no loss is sustained to the opposite party. The petitioner on the otherhand sustained loss. In our opinion the act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. The bill issued by the opposite party Dtd: 21..4..2008 for an amount of Rs. 17,150/- is cancelled. Opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Opposite party can be adjust in the said amount in the future bill of the petitioner. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and sufferings, no compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2009.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
