O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner filed on , 5..4..2008 is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board with vide consumer No. 10745 under LT IV Tariff. Electric connection to the petitioners premises is availed for conducting a small prawns farm at Kottachira near Vaikom. According to the petitioner income from the farm is the only source of his livelihood. On 14..2..2008 opposite parties issued a back assessment bill, for an amount of Rs. 5786/-, to the petitioner. Petitioner states that opposite party without any notice changed the meter in the said electric connection to the petitioners premises on 4..10..2005. The old meter was properly functioning and have defect. The farm is functioning seasonally for four months in a year and during the other months minimum charge is paid. Electricity is needed to the farm only at the initial stage and during the harvest time. According to the -2- petitioner the back assessment bill issued to the petitioner Dtd: 14..2..2008 is arbitrary, illegal and against law and is a clear deficiency in service. Petitioner prays for an order to cancel the bill Dtd: 14..2..2008 for Rs. 5786/-. Petitioner claims Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Petitioner is not a consumer of the opposite party and the connection was given to one Sreedevi Jayaprakash under electrical section, Vaikom. The connection was availed for the purpose of running a prawn farm and the connected load is 8 K.W. Opposite party changed power and light meter of the consumer on 4..10..2005. According to the opposite party the consumption pattern of the petitioner indicates that light meter was faulty and power meter was sluggish from 4/05 to 9/05. During the inspection of the personal ledger by the audit wing of KSEB on February, 2008, it was noticed that a back assessment bill was not issued to the petitioner so far. Hence additional bill was served to the petitioner for Rs. 5786/-. As per clause 48 of KSEB terms and conditions of supply 2005. If the consumer disputes the accuracy of the meter installed in his premises he may submit a written application to the Asst. Engineer and pay prescribed fee for the test. On receipt of the application Asst. Engineer shall take action for testing the meter at Electrical Inspectorate . So, according to the opposite party back assessment bill issued to the petitioner is legal and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, they pray for 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) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties . Point No. 1 Petitioner disputes the bill Dtd: 14..2..2008 for an amount of Rs. 5786/-. Opposite party admitted issuance of the disputed bill. According to the opposite party bill is issued as per the direction of the audit party. During the inspection of the consumers personal ledger by the audit wing of the opposite party on February 2008 it was noticed -3- from the consumption pattern that light meter was faulty and power meter was sluggish from 4/05, 9/05. Further more opposite party contented that as per clause 42 of KSEB terms and conditions of supply 2005. If consumer disputes accuracy of the meter installed in his premises he may submit a written application to test the meter to the Electrical Inspectorate. Here the petitioner has no case of fault with the meter opposite party themselves replaced the light meter and power meter of the consumer on 4..10..2005. Before changing the meter opposite party had not declared the meter of the petitioner as faulty. From the readings stated in the version it can be seen that on 4/05, 6/05 and 7/05 the door of the premises was locked. As per regulation 33 (2) if the board is unable to raise a bill on meter reading due to non recording or mal functioning the board shall issue a bill based on previous six months average consumption in such cases meter shall be replaced within one month. If the average consumption for previous six months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing the record consumption for any other reason. The consumption will be determined based on meter reading in succeeding 3 months after replacement of the meter. Here the opposite party has no case that the average consumption before the faulty period cannot be taken . Further more, from the version of the opposite party it can be seen that in previous months before 4..10..2005 the door of the premises was locked. As per regulation 33 (4) in case of door lock consumer shall be provisionally charged the average consumption for the last six months that was also not done by the opposite party. In our view without following the regulations of conditions of supply opposite party issued the disputed bill. So, in our view the act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. As per order in I.A 85/2010 the petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs. 5786/- to the opposite party. So, that is to be refunded. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. In the result bill dtd: 14..2..2008 for an amount of Rs. 5786/- is cancelled. Opposite party is ordered to refund the amount remitted by the petitioner to the opposite party or else the opposite party can be adjust the amount in future bills. -4- 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 26th day of August, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the Petitioner: Nil. Document for the Opposite party: Nil. By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
