THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC No. 56/2006 Thursday, the 5th day of June, 2008. Petitioner : Dr. George T. John, Thuruthel House, Vadavathoor P.O, Kalathipady, Kottayam. (By Adv. C.P Cherian) Vs. Opposite parties : 1. The KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum reptd. By its Secretary. 2. The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Manarcadu, Kottayam. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner's is as follows. Petitioner is the consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board. Petitioner states that opposite party collected amounts from the petitioner in excess of the actual electricity consumed. According to the petitioner the bill amount collected from the petitioner by the opposite party is in excess. Electric meter attached to the premises of the petitioner was replaced by the petitioner by depositing an amount of Rs. 110/- to the opposite party for testing the meter. No test report was provided to the petitioner. After the instalation of the new meter the bill came down to Rs. 1549/- so according to the petitioner the earlier bills issued by the opposite party are false so, petitioner claime the refund of the said amount and also to pay Rs. 2500/- as compensation and another Rs. 2500/- as cost of proceedings. -2- Opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. They admitted that the meter is showing eronious reading. According to opposite party when the meter reading was taken on 1..8..2005 and 2..10..2005. As per request the petitioner and remitting the required testing fee on 13..10..2005 the old meter was tested in the meter testing laboratory attached to TMR Division, Pallom. The meter shown percentage false of + 54.3 %. They admitted that after the installation of the new meter the bill come down to Rs. 1549/- According to the opposite party there was eronious reading for 2 bills ie., 1..8..2005 and 2..10..2005. The said bills were revised by the opposite party based on the test report with regard to meter was received. According to the opposite party average consumption pattern of the petitioner is 550 unit to 700 unit. So on going through the earlier bills. It can be seen that no false bills were issued to the petitioner. So there is no deficiency in service on their part and petition is to be dismissed with their costs. Points for determination are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs if any. Evidence in this case consists affidavit filed by both parties Ext. A1 to A11 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 documents on the side of opposite party. Point No. 1 The petitioner produced bill dated 2..12..2005 for an amount of Rs. 1549/- the said bill is marked as Ext. A11. According to the petitioner Ext. A11 meter reading is the -3- reading taken after installation of a new meter by removing the defective meter. So, the petitioner's definite case is that the by monthly consumption of the petitioner is the consumption of electrical energy shown in Ext. A11 ie. 499 units. So, the petitioner states that during the time of fault with meter excess amounts were collected from the petitioner. The opposite party admitted that there was eronious readings. When meter reading taken on 1..8..2005 and 2..10..2005. The opposite party produced the report of the meter testing laboratory the report is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the percentage false is shown as +54.3%. So, after receipt of Ext. B1 the opposite party issued revised bills for the period 1..6..2005, 1..8..2005, 2..10..2005. We reproduce the details of consumption from 1..2..2003 to 2..8..2006. The details are: Bill Date Consumption in units Bill amount 01/02/03 549 Rs. 1781/- 02/04/03 587 Rs. 1957/- 02/06/03 641 Rs. 2252/- 01/08/03 508 Rs. 1591/- 01/10/03 555 Rs. 1809/- 04/12/03 634 Rs. 2212/- 03/02/04 567 Rs. 1864/- 01/04/04 627 Rs. 2172/- 01/06/04 586 Rs. 1952/- 02/08/04 545 Rs.1762/- 01/10/04 548 Rs.1776/- 02/12/04 579 Rs.1920/- 01/02/05 591 Rs. 1975/- 01/04/05 671 Rs. 2424/- 01/06/05 638 (revised unit 414) Rs. 2235/- (revised to 1156) 01/08/05 907 (Revised unit 589) Rs. 4005/- (revised to 2103) Reading after changed meter on 14..10..2005. 02/12/05 499 Rs. 1549/- 01/02/06 524 Rs. 1609/- 01/04/06 644 Rs. 2141/- 01/06/06 699 Rs. 2444/- 02/08/06 583 Rs. 1821/- So, from the above consumption. Pattern it is very clear that the complainant is using energy in the order of 550 units to 700 units by monthly. The opposite party has also revised bills showing exorbitant consumption ie. bill dtd: 1..6..2005, 1..8..2005 and 2..10..2005 things being so. We cannot attribute any deficiency in service against the opposite party. Point No. 1 is find according. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 5th day of June, 2008. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
