O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Kerala State Electricity Board with vide consumer No. 4235. According to the petitioner the meter installed at the house of the petitioner is not working properly. After repeated complaints made by the petitioner meter was replaced by the opposite parties in April 2005. Petitioner states that he was regularly remitted the electricity dues as billed by the electricity board. On 24..7..2007 short assessment bill for an amount of Rs. 5782/- was issued to the petitioner by the opposite party. Petitioner states that issuance of the bill for a period of 28 months, without any legal basis, is a clear deficiency of service. So the petitioner prays for direction of the Forum to the opposite party not to disconnect the electric

-2-

connection of the petitioner. He also prays for the cancellation of the short assessment bill dtd: 20..7..2007 and he claims Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 1500/- as cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the meter of the petitioner was faulty prior to November 2000. Due to accute shortage of the meters the faulty meter could be replaced only on 2..4..2005. The opposite party contented that meter of the petitioner was faulty for morethan 54 months. The petitioner was being billed for an average consumption of 210 units by monthly for the entire 53 months. Faulty meter was replaced on 2..4..2005 by a new meter. The audit team of the opposite party conducted the billing audit of the petitioner on 9..2..2007 and it was pointed out that recorded consumption of the consumer doubled after the meter change. So, according to the opposite party peptitioner was reassessed for the unbilled portion of the energy during the faulty meter period. Thus the bill for an amount of Rs. 578/- was issued to the petitioner. Opposite party contented that short assessment has been done only for a period of 28 months and also said bill was issued as per clause 24 (d) of the Kerala State Electricty supply code 2005. So the opposite party contented that issuance of the bill is proper and legal so, no deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite paprty.

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii) Reliefs and costs.

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties. Ext. A1 document on the side of the petitioner. Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party.

-3-

Point No.1

Petitioner produced the copy of the disputed bill dtd: 20..7..2007. The said document is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that the bill is short assessment bill issued to the petitioner for the meter faulty period. According to the opposite party meter was faulty prior to November 2000. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the issuance of the Ext. A1 bill is not legal. Because as per section 56 (2) of the electricity Act 2003 no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after a period of 2 years from the date when such sum become first due unless such some has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied. Here from Ext. A1 it can be seen that bill was issued only on 20..7..2007. According to the opposite party the meter was faulty prior to November 2000. As per regulation 33 (2) of the KSEB terms and condition of supply 2005, in cases were the meter is faulty it shall be replaced within one month. So, non replacement of the meter for a long period of 5 years is defanitly an imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by the opposite party as per law. So, we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite party in not replacing the meter after repeated demands is a clear deficiency of service. Further, more, Ext. A1 is issued after the date of commencement of the Electricity Act 2003 is not legal as per section 56 (2) of the Act. So, we are of the opinion that issuance of Ext. A1 bill is not legal and we find deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

-4-

Point No. 2

In view of findings in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. In the result the assessment bill dtd: 20..7..2007 with vide bill No. 24886 is quashed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is allowed.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant Corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25^th day of November, 2008.