The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant had an electric connection to his peper business unit. He had been paying regularly the bills issued by the opposite parties. The monthly consumption of the complainant depends on the production in the unit and the work in the premises was also seasonal. The power meter of the complainant was sealed by the Kerala State Electricity Board and it always remains sealed since its installation. On 20.4.07 the Division squad of the Kerala State

-2-

Electricity Board inspected the premises of the complainant. The squad broke open the seal of the power meter terminal cover and meter box, tested the pressure coil voltage and again sealed it then and there. Then the squad informed the complainant that they have noted fungus (Aluminium Oxide) on the pressure coil wire connection and therefore there was no pressure coil voltage reading. The complainant was not aware of the technical know-how of the power meter. The development of fungus inside the power meter was beyond the control of the complainant. The opposite parties issued a bill dated 24.4.07 to the complainant demanding Rs.64,050/- as short assessment for non-recording of current in the 'Y' phase as per the inspection report of squad. Then the complainant approached 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party directed the complainant to give a letter to the 4^th opposite party (E.E.KWA) undertaken to request for instalments and the complainant acted accordingly on the 2^nd opposite parties assurance that the bill will be cancelled on doing so and the instalments if paid will be adjusted in future bills. Accordingly, believing the opposite parties assurance,the complainant gave a letter to the 4^th opposite party and paid Rs.10,675 on 8/5/07, 11,745/- on 8/6/07 and Rs.11,535/- on 9/7/07. But now the opposite parties have informed the complainant that they will not adjust the payments made by the complainant in the future bills. Since the complainant is not liable to pay the said bill he was entitled to get back the said amount of a total of Rs.33,955/- paid to the opposite parties under their false assurance. There was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties issuing additional bills to the complainant without any basis. Hence this complaint.

The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending

as follows: The complainant was not a consumer under the

-3-

Consumer Protection Act. If the connection was given for the commercial purpose complaint is not maintainable before the Fora

The connection of the complainant was provided under industrial tariff. The squad broke open the seal of the power meter, terminal cover, tested the pressure coil voltage and it was formed that there was no pressure coil voltage, reading in one phase. This fact was shown to the supervisor of the consumer's industrial firm and he was convinced by the same. Since there was no pressure coil voltage, only 2/3^rd of the actual consumption was recorded in the meter. The officials of the Kerala State Electricity Board are taking the meter reading every month. But the defect of the meter can be defected only on through checking. Therefore the complainant is bound to compensate the loss sustained to Kerala State Electricity Board due to non-reading of the actual consumption. The short assessment was made for the previous 3 months only. The mahazar has been prepared by the Kerala State Electricity Board and issuance of bill are as per prevailing rules and laws and it can not be alleged as fraud or without good faith or frivolous. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

The complainant filed proof Affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 to A5. The opposite party filed proof Affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibit, B1 and B5.

Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version documents and evidences. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties had issued additional bill to him without

any basis. According to him he was remitted the charges as and when the bills were issued by the opposite parties. The opposite parties had taken contention that the complainant's electric meter was not recording the consumption of the electricity through the

-4-

'Y' phase. According to the opposite parties the complainant has consumed the electricity but the same was not recorded through the 'Y' phase of the meter. Moreover the opposite parties cotended that complainant's firm was an industrial unit and the consumption was on commercial tariff. The counsel for the complainant argued that the mistake was an account of technical reasons and the counsel produced the decision rendered by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in III (2004) CPJ.458. The complainant no way responsible for loss of energy which occurred due to technical fault. But in present case the decision was not applicable because the complainant's case is not on the basis of technical reasons. The only question to be considered is that the 'Y' phase was not recorded the consumption. This was not a technical reasons. But in the present case the complainant had made a representation for instalments and the complainant had remitted 3 instalments towards the arrear bill. From the available evidence and records we find that the opposite parties issued arrear bill for actual consumption of energy through the 'Y' phase of the meter. The complainant has not a case that the opposite parties issued arrear bill which the complainant has not consumed the electricity. The disputed bill was already remitted in part by the complainant in 3 instalments. Admittedly the opposite parties has not charged any penal or other additional charges. The disputed bill amount was on the basis of 3 months average consumption of the complainant. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the complainant has not consumed the alleged electricity for the disputed period. So we have no reason to believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be dismissed.

-5-

In the result the complaint is dismissed. Both parties will suffer their respective costs.