<br /> O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> The case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> The petitioner as the legal heir of his father, as a beneficiary, is a consumer of the opposite party. The electric connection of the petitioners house is in the name of his late father. The electric meter attached to the petitioner's premises is faulty. The petitioner had complained several time with regard to the fault with the meter. The opposite party on May, 2005 replaced the faulty meter with a new meter. After the removal of the faultymeter a bill, for an amount of Rs. 3,580/-, was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner remited the said amount. According to the petitioner he is only consuming electrical energy for 148-186 units bimonthly. The opposite party on 16..11..2005 issued <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> a demand notice to the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs. 6586/-. According to the petitioner he is not liable to pay such a huge amount for the period when the meter was faulty. The petitioner states that the act of the opposite party in issuing exorbitant bill to the petitioner is a clear deficiency of service. So, he prays for cancellation of the demand notice dt: 1..11..2006 and also for the reimbursement of the excess amount collected from the petitioner. He also claims for Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.<br /> The opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to the opposite party the additional electricity bill issued is legal. The energy meter of the petitioner was faulty from 1/03 until it was replaced by an electronic meter on 5/05. During the said period the petitioner had been<br /> paying bimonthly bill of Rs. 385/- for an average assumed energy consumption of 200 units for the said period. After the installation of the new meter bimonthly consumption was found 180, 486and 376 units respectively. The consumer remitted the charge for the said unit without any protest. According to the opposite party the Regional Audit Officer, KSEB, observed the abnormality and specifically instructed for back assessment to the meter faulty period. The petitioner was back assessed and issued the disputed bill. So the opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part. So they pray for a dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner. The opposite party eventhough averred in the counter affidavit has not produced any documents as mentioned.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> Pettioner produced a demand cum disconnection notice dtd: 20..5..2006 for an amount of Rs. 6685/- and said document is marked as Ext. A5. In Ext. A5 document it is mentioned that the meter of the petitioner was faulty from 1/03 to 5/05. According to the complainant he is paying Rs. 358/- per month for the faulty period. The petitioner is paying the monthly bills during faulty period as per the assessment made under section 33 (2) of the conditions of supply 2005. Section 33 (2) states that if the board is unable to raise bill due to non recording or mal function of the meter the board shall issue a bill based on previous six months energy consumption and in such case the meter shall be replaced within one month. The opposite party in their version stated that during the faulty period the petitioner was paying the bill of Rs. 385/- for an average energy consumption of 200 units. So, we are of the opinion that issuance of Ext. A5 is an additional assessment in addition to the assessment made earlier. So it is not legal. On perusal of the Ext. A1 to A4 document, ie., bill issued after the replacement of the meter it can be seen that the average consumption is 229 to 303 units. So it may be probable that the consumption of the petitioner is likewise. Moreover from Ext. A5 it can be seen that no time as provided under regulation 24 (5) for remiting the under charged amount is given to the petitioner. As per S-24 (5) of electricity supply code 2005 at least 30 days shall be given to the consumer to make payment in case of under charged consumers. So <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> we are of the view that the act of the opposite party can be treated as shortcoming in the manner of performance required to be performed under law. So, we are of the opinion that Ext. A5 is an assessment made twice so the act of issuance of bill without complying the legal formality is a clear deficiency of service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1. Petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for. The demand notice dtd: 1..11..2005 for an amount of Rs.6585/- is cancelled.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , no cost and compensation is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2008.