Kerala

Kottayam

15/2007

Robert Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretory - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2008

ORDER


Report
CDRF, Collectorate
consumer case(CC) No. 15/2007

Robert Mathew
Mathw Abraham
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Secretory
asst Engineer
asst Exe Enginner
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Bindhu M Thomas 2. Santhosh Kesava Nath P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

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 Electricity Board with vide consumer No. 9563 of Electrical Section, Manacadu. The petitioner is regularly paying the bills issued by the opposite party. The petitioner was issued with a bill dtd: 21..12..2006 for an amount of Rs. 28984/- by the opposite party. The petitioner states that he has not used electricity for such an exhorbitant amount. The petitioner had filed a -2- complaint before the opposite party on 21..12..2006 but the opposite party has not cured the deficiency in service on their part . According to the petitioner the said bill is without any basis and he has not consumed so much of electricity. So the petitioner prays for setting aside the bill dtd: 21..12..2006 for an amount of Rs. 28984/- and also he claims costs and compensation. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable and the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party and mis joinder of unnecessary party. According to the opposite party the disputed bill dtd: 21..12..2006 for an amount of Rs. 28984/- was issued on the basis of reading recorded on the meter. The Sub Engineer based on the complaint of the petitioner inspected the meter. But he had not found any mal functioning or defects to the meter so they adviced the petitioner to test the meter at the meter testing laboratory. The petitioner tested the meter and as per the test report the meter was found beyond the limits of the accuracies so the opposite party submitted in their version that they are ready to cancel the bill dtd: 21..12..2006 and issue revised bill as per clause 42 of terms and conditions of supply 2005. So on the admission of the opposite party in their version with regard to the faulty meter and consideration of their willingness to issue a revised bill as per clause 42 of condition of supply the petition is disposed accordingly. In the result, the bill dtd: 21..12..2006 for an amount of Rs. 28984/- is cancelled and opposite party is ordered to issue revised bill as per norms. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2008.




......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P