KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

              VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.18/2007

                             JUDGMENT DATED 25.5.2010

PRESENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                         --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.       Secretary, KSEB,

Trivandrum.

2.       Assistant Executive Engineer,              --  APPELLANTS

          Electrical Sub Division,

          Perinadu, Kollam.

             (By Adv.S.Balachandran)

                   Vs.

Sirajudeen,

Managing Partner,

M/s.Marek PVC Products,                           --  RESPONDENT

Chanthanathoppu post, Kollam.

  (By Adv.R.Rajesh)

                                                JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in OP.20704 on the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing electricity bill dated 1.11.03 vide No.58401 and bill dated 20.4.04 vide No.083495 and additional bill for  interest of Rs.77,100/-.  The complaint prayed to get all the aforesaid 3 bills cancelled.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service.  They contended that the impugned bills were issued based on the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act and the Rules there under.  Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing the aforesaid 3 bills.    

          2. Before the Forum below a witness from the side  of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 documents  were also marked.  From the side of the opposite parties, DW1 was examined and D1 series meter reading register was also marked.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 31^st October 2006 directing the complainant to pay the amounts covered by the electricity Bill No.58401 dated 1.11.03 and Bill No.083495 dated 20.4.04.  But the bill claiming interest amounting to Rs.77,100/-   was quashed and  the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1000/- by way of cost to the complainant.  It is against the said order setting aside the bill for Rs.77,100/-, the present appeal   is filed by the opposite parties therein.

          3. We heard both sides.  

          4. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties (KSEB) submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He argued for the position that a sum of Rs.77,100/- has been claimed by way of interest on the arrears of electricity charges due to KSEB from the complainant and  that the interest is claimed only because of the instalment facilities availed by the complainant/consumer.  Thus, the appellants/opposite parties prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below cancelling the bill   for  interest  amounting to Rs.77,100/- and also the direction to pay cost of Rs.1000/-.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  He submitted that there was no fault or lapse on the part of the respondent/complainant in remitting the  energy charges covered by the bills issued to the complainant/consumer that insurance of     additional bills was necessitated only because of the failure on the part of the officials of KSEB in issuing the energy bills properly.  So, the claim for interest amounting to Rs.77,100/- is legally un-sustainable and the Forum below has rightly disallowed the said claim for Rs.77,100/-.  Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

          5. There is no dispute that the additional Bill Nos.58401 dated 1.11.03 and Bill No. 08345 dated 24.4.04 were issued based on the short assessment of the energy consumed by the complainant/consumer.  Admittedly, the officials of KSEB failed to take into consideration the  CT ratio factor for calculating the actual consumption of energy.  The multiple factor of the CT meter installed at the premises of the complainant was 20.  By an inadvertent omission, the said multiple factor of 20 was not considered while issuing the energy bills to the complainant/consumer for the period from August 2002 to October 2003.  The aforesaid omission occurred only due to the mistake on the part of the officials of KSEB.   There was no fault on the part of the complainant/consumer.  So, the aforesaid bill for   Rs.3,21,315/- was issued by way of short  assessment for the period from August 2002 to October 2003.  There can be no doubt that the complainant/consumer was put in difficulties and inconveniences by the demand of such a huge amount of Rs.3,21,315/-.  It is to be noted that the said amount was demanded for the period from August 2002 to October  2003.  Therefore, the complainant/consumer was entitled to get instalment facility to reduce his difficulties and inconveniences.  It is not just or fair on the part of the opposite parties/KSEB in claiming interest on the said amount because of the fact that the complainant was given instalment facility to remit the said amount.

          6. The other bill dated 20.4.04 was issued  for  Rs.1,23,003/-.   The aforesaid Bill   dated 20.4.04  was issued based on the fact that the meter was defective from February 2003 till September 2003.  It is to be noticed that the defective nature of the meter was reported by the complainant in February 2003 itself.  But, the opposite party/KSEB could replace the defective meter by a new meter only during September 2003.  The aforesaid delay would show the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The assessment was made based on the energy consumption for the subsequent period and thereby the bill dated 20.4.04 for Rs.1,23,003/- was issued.  The Forum below has rightly upheld the aforesaid bill.   The opposite party/KSEB has also claimed interest on the said amount of Rs.1,23,003/- on the ground that  instalment facility was availed by the complainant/consumer.  It is to be noted that the complainant/consumer was very prompt in remitting  the energy based on the energy bills issued to him.   But, the aforesaid two additional bills were issued belatedly only because of the lapse or negligence on the part of the officials of the KSEB.  So, the complainant/consumer has got every right to get instalment facility.  The opposite parties cannot be  justified in demanding interest on the said amounts for the period during which the instalment facilities are given.  The Forum below has rightly held that the additional two bills were issued only because of the negligence or lapse on the part of the officials of KSEB and the complainant/consumer is entitled to get the instalment facilities to pay the amounts covered by those two additional bills.    The Forum below has also rightly held that the complainant/consumer is not bound to pay interest or penal interest on the said amounts.   Thus, the interest of Rs.77,100/- claimed by the opposite parties   is unsustainable.  The impugned order passed by the Forum below cancelling the said bill for Rs.77,100/- is to be upheld.  The Forum below has also awarded cost of Rs.1000/-  to the complainant  by way of litigation expenses.  We do not find any reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP . 207/04.  The present appeal deserves dismissal.  Hence we do so.

                    In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order dated 31.10.2006 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP.207/04 is confirmed.  As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                              M.V.VISWANATHAN   --  JUDICIAL MEMBER