O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

Petitioner is a cnsumer of the opposite partyElectricity Board. According to the petitioner he is a BPL card holder. Opposite party on free of cost supplied electrical energy to the petitioner and later Rs. 85/- per month was levied to the petitioner as electricity charges. On 1..6..2007 the opposite party issued a demand cum disconnection notice to the petitioner demanding an amount of Rs. 2800/-, whch is due to the opposite party, and the disconnection date shown in the notice is 16..6..2007. According to the petitioner he had not consumed electricity for such huge amount. The petitioner states that if the opposite party had taken the meter reading properly the petitioner is not forced to remit such huge amount. The petitioner states that the act of the opposite party is

-2-

clear deficiency of service. So, he prays for direction of the Forum to set aside bill dtd. 1..6..2007 and also he claims cost and compensation.

The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable either on law on or facts. The opposite party contented that electric connection to the petitioner's premises was given for domestic purpose under slab -2. As per the existing rules on that time he was under NPG category. Subsequently the energy meter become faulty. From August 2000, he was transferred from the NPG category to the payment group. Meter of the petitioner was faulty during 12/05 with initial reading as 7 from 12/05. The consumption pattern of the petitioner shows that the average consumption of the petitioner is 149 units. So, opposite party contented that the charge for thesaid period of fault with meter was Rs. 4160/-. Petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs. 1360/-. So, the petitioner is legally bound to pay the amount as shown in the demand cum disconnection notice. So, the opposite party prays for a dismissal of the petition with their costs.

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 affidavit filed by the both parties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner, no documents filed on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

Petitioner produced the demand cum disconnection notice amounting Rs. 2800/-

-3-

and said notice is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that the bill is issued for the energy consumed by the petitioner during the period when the meter was fault. Petition has no case that the electric meter instaled in the petitioner premises was not working. The opposite party has a defanite contention that the average consumption of the meter faulty period is 149 units the petitioner has not denied the said contention of the opposite party. We cannot compel the opposite party to waive the electricity charges the petitioner had used. Section 31 (c) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy 1990 states that in the event of meter reading found in correct the meter will be declared faulty. The correct quantity of energy shall be determined by taking the average consumption for the previous six months or for the succeeding 3 months. So, we are of the opinion that the calculation and demand of the opposite party is genuine. But 31 (a) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy states that the meter reading will be taken by the board at fixed time. As per KSEBoard terms and conditions of supply 2005 regulation 33 the faulty meter shall be replaced within one month. Here the admitted case of the opposite party is that the meter of the petitioner was faulty from 2/03. The new meter was installed only on 12/05. So there is a shortcoming or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by law to be performed by the opposite party in taking the meter reading and from removing faulty meter in time. In our opinion it is a clear deficiency of service. Even though we find deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Since the petitioner had consumed such amount of electricity during the meter faulty period. Petitioner is bound to pay the charges in the said period. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

-4-

Point No. 2

In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed in part and the petitioner is entitled for the following relief. In the result the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on their part. The opposite party is ordered to adjust the compensation amount in the disputed bill amount of Rs. 2800/-. Petitioner is directed to remit the balance bill amount in 4 equal instalments. 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 29^th day of October, 2008.