Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

Petitioner as a means of livelihood as self employment is conducting a Saw Mill at Pala. According to the petitioner he had paid regular bills issued by the opposite party. The average monthly consumption of the petitioner was around 80 units and the average bill was around Rs. 9000/-. The petitioner was serv ed with a bill dtd: 10..10..2006 for an amount of Rs. 33,890/- by the opposite parties. According to the petitioner he had not used electricity for such an exorbitant amount. On receiving the said bill the petitioner submitted a complaint to the opposite party but so far no action was taken by the opposite party. Petitioner states that the act of the opposite party in issuing false and exorbitant

-2-

bill without any legal basis is a clear deficiency in service so, he prays for setting aside the bill dtd: 10..10..2006 and also he claims Rs. 25000/- as compensation and 3000/- as cost of proceedings.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party contented that the petitioner has no locus standi file this petition because the petitioner had not made any agreement with the electricity board . They contented that the connection is the name of Sri. Krishna Rao Sait and there is no transfer of ownership or right of occupancy of the premises. According to the opposite party since the connection is for a business concern petition is not maintainable as per Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Act. Opposite party contented that the bill was issued as per the recorded meter reading and is based on consumption. Opposite party contented that the petitioner had not given any complaint to the opposite party as alleged by the the petitioner. Based on the oral complaint of the petitioner meter installed at the premises of the petitioner was inspected by the concerned Sub Engineer and found that both meters were working properly at the time of inspection. Opposite party, further contented that high consumption during 9/2006 was definitly either due to large number of working hours of the petitioner's machinery or due to some fault in the electric circuit in the consumers premises. So, the opposite party prays fr the dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

iii) Relief and costs?

-3-

Evidence consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A14 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

According to the opposite party connection was in the name of one Krishna Rao Sait . So, the opposite party contented that petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition so the petition is not maintainable. As per Section 2 (d) (ii) Consumer means any person who hires or avails any service for a consieration which has been paid or promised and includes any beneficiary of such service. So, we are of the opinion that as a beneficiary of the service the petitioner is a consumer, the petition is maintainable.

Point No. 2

Petitioner produced the disputed bill Dtd: 10..10..2006 for an amount of Rs. 33,890/- said document is marked as Ext. A1. Petitioner produced the bill which is issued prior to the disputed period and after the disputed period and were marked as Ext. A2 to Ext. A13. Councel for the petitioner argued that from Ext. A2 to A13 it can be seen that average consumption of the petitioner was around 80 units and average bill was around Rs. 9,000/-. So, issuance of Ext. A1 bill is for an exorbitant consumption. Opposite party argued that since the petitioner has no complaint with regard to the meter. Petitioner is liable to pay the amount recorded monthly . Opposite party argued that sanctioned connected load to the consumer is 36 KW. If 3 shifts were working daily with a shift duration of 8 hours with 36 KW connected load will cause a monthly consumption of 25920 units. If 2 shifts were working daily with a shift duration of 8 hours with 36 KW connected load daily cause monthly consumption of 17250 units. If

-4-

one sift were working daily shift duration of 8 hours with 36 KW of connected load will cause a monthly consumption of 8640 units. Here the consumption during 9/06 was only 8820 units and the same is definitely possible with the normal working pattern with 36 KW connected load. According to the opposite party recorded consumption was actually drawn by the consumer from the board system. So, the consumer has to pay bill correspondent to the recorded consumption. Opposite party in their version had stated that the power meter recording as 8820 units and the light meter consumption as 269 units. From a bare looking in the previous recorded consumption of light meter it can be seen that the consumption of light energy through the light meter was double than the previous months. So, we draw an inference that extra works were probably going on in the petitioners Saw Mill. Further more, the petition has no case of fault with meter. The bill was issued for the recorded consumption which was actually drawn by the consumer from the board system. So, we are of the view that the consumer has to pay the bill corresponding to the recorded consumption. So, no deficiency in service can be attributed against the opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of findings in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. 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 21^st day of January, 2009.