THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.<br /> Present:<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President<br /> Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member<br /> CC No. 228/2006.<br /> Tuesday, the 22nd day of July, 2008.<br /> Petitioner : P.N Thankappan<br /> Punnakal House,<br /> Njezhoor.<br /> (By Adv. Jose Joseph K)<br /> Vs.<br /> Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,<br /> Vaidyuthi Bhavan,<br /> Pattom, Trivandrum.<br /> Reptd. By its Secretary.<br /> <br /> 2) The Asst. Engineer,<br /> KSEB, Kaduthuruthy.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> Case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party. The petitioner states that the electric connection of the petitioner was originally in the name of P.N Devaki, who is the sister of the petitioner's mother, she was spinster and was residing with the petitioner. The said Devaki died intestate now right and title of the property of the said Devaki was in the name of the petitioner and as a beneficiary he is enjoying the electric connection for the last several years. The electric charges are paid by the petitioner. Petitioner states that the opposite party issued a bill dtd: 1..11..2006 for an amount of Rs. 7433/- alleging that the meter of the petitioner was faulty. According to the petitioner, without any evidence, issuing of additional bill demanding excess payment is a clear deficiency of service. So, he prays for directing the opposite parties to cancel the bill No. 227480 Dtd: 1..11..2006 and also to refund the amounts collected from the petitioner he also claims compensation in the tune of Rs. 2000/- and cost of the proceedings. <br /> -2-<br /> The opposite party entered appearance filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts. According to the opposite party energy meter of the petitioner was faulty from February, 2002, until it was replaced by an electronic meter on 17..5..2005. Petitioner had been paying bimonthly bill of Rs. 180/- for an average energy consumption of 110 units. After the installation of the new meter the bimonthly consumption for 8/05, 10/05 and 12/05 was 374, 287 and 264 units respectively. The Regional Audit Officer, KSEB, observed abnormality and instructed for back assessment for the meter faulty period. The opposite party back assessed by taking an average consumption of six months since the meter was changed. So according to the opposite party issuance of the bill is legal and there is no deficiency of service on their part. The opposite party prays for the dismissal of the petition.<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 /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both paprties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner produced the back assessed bill for an amount of Rs. 7433/- dtd: 1..11..2006. The said bill produced is marked as Ext. A1 document. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that the bill is for the period in which the meter of the petitioner was faulty. The opposite party has not produced any expert evidence to prove that the meter was faulty. <br /> The fault with the meter was not even decided by an Electrical Inspector. On relying decision referred Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Nirmala Metal Industries Vs. KSEB <br /> -3-<br /> reported in 2006 (3) KLT page 465 Hon'ble High Court of Kerala stated that if the board wants to raise a bill on the plea that it is defective meter. It is for the board to taking meter and raise a bill in accordance with law. Further more as per Section- 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. No sum shall be recoverable after a period of 2 years from the date when such amount is first due. Here the bill is for a period of 2/03 when the meter was faulty. We are of the opinion that as per 56(2) of the act it is not recoverable. So we are of the opinion that issuance of the Ext. A1 without any finding of fault with meter is a clear deficiency of service and demand of the bill amount is barred. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for . In the result, the bill for an amount of Rs. 7,433/- dtd: 1..11..2006 is cancelled. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and injury no compensation is ordered. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of July, 2008.