KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 88/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 27..12..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR             : MEMBER

1. TheKerala State Electricity Board,      : APPELLANTS

     Vydhyuthi Bhavanam, PAttom,

     Thiruvananthapuram rep.by its

     Secretary.

2. The Assistant Engineer,                      

     Electrical Major Section,

     Gandhinagar.

(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

Shaji.P.Thomas,                                                 : RESPONDENT

Palappurackal House,

Malloossery Kara,

Perumbaikkadu Village,

Kottayam District.

(By Adv.C.S.Rajmohan)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC.28/09 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The bill issued by the appellants/opposite parties stands cancelled.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that he was served with a demand notice for a sum of Rs.12712/- allegedly towards the dues from February 2003 to June 2005.  The bill is dated 1.1.09.   It is contended that the above bill is illegal.

          3. According to the opposite parties the bills has been issued on the basis of average consumption after replacing the faulty meter.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits by the respective sides; Exts.A1 and Exts.B1 and B2.

          5. The Forum cancelled the bill mentioning that regulation 33 clause 2 of the Conditions of Supply has not been complied with.  As per the above clause the meter has to be replaced within one month and the assessment on the basis of  subsequent consumption can be made only if the previous six months average consumption cannot be taken.

          6. It is the contention of the appellants that in fact it is clause 42(3) that applied and that replacement of the meter within one month is not possible.  We find that as per the clause 42(3) the meter found faulty should be replaced immediately.  We find there is no justification at all for replacing  the meter after two years and then issuing the bill again after more than 3 years of replacing the meter.  We find there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and no interference in the order of the Forum is called   for.  The appeal is dismissed.

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

          SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR             : MEMBER

ps