KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 420/2004 ORDER DATED 10.03.2008 PRESENT: M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, K.S.E.B. Thiruvananthapuram. : Appellants 2.The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. Electrical Section, Nattakam, Kottayam. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs T.K.Kurian, Thoppilthazhathu (H), : Respondent Collectorate P.O. Kottayam JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite parties in O.P.48/03 have come in appeal against the order dated.6.4.02 of the CDRF, Kottayam whereby the Forum cancelled Ext.A5 bill amounting to Rs.1,49,633/- issued by the opposite parties with the direction to pay Rs.750/- as costs to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant before the lower forum was that he was a consumer of the second opposite party and demand notice dated.20.02.03 for Rs.1,49,633/- was issued to him stating that only 1/3rd of the energy consumed by the complainant was only recorded in the meter and hence the opposite parties claimed the charges for the escaped consumption in the other two phases of the meter. The complainant alleged that he was running an industrial unit as a self employment venture and that meter reading was taken every month and he used to pay the bill amounts without fail. His case was that he was not liable to pay any more amount as claimed by the opposite parties. Though he had requested to cancel the bill, the opposite parties were not amenable for the same and hence the complaint was filed for directions to cancel the bill for Rs.1,49,633/- and to direct the opposite parties to produce the meter reading register of consumer No.5641 before the forum and to pay Rs.15,001/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. 3. On receipt of notice the second opposite party filed a version for himself and for the other opposite party contending that the impugned bill was issued consequent to the direction that two phases of the three phase C.T.Meter installed in the premises of the complainant were not functioning and hence the site mahazar was prepared and the meter was replaced on 20.03.03. The bill was issued for a period of six months on the basis that two phase were not recording the consumption and there was no deficiency of service on their part. The opposite parties further contended that the complainant was liable to pay the bill amount and as there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, they prayed for the dismissal of the complainant. 4. The evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the Manager of the complainant and the second opposite party. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite parties. The forum below passed the impugned order allowing the claims of the complainant to a greater extent. 5. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued his case based on the contention raised before the lower forum and on the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. It is argued by him that the lower forum lost sight in many of the crucial points and that Exts.B1 and B2 ought to have been relied on by the forum below. He pointed out that the new meter also recorded higher consumption than that was recorded in the old meter which fact would establish that the earlier meter was not recording the actual consumption properly. It is his further case that there was a site mahazar prepared by the second opposite party on 13.2.03 which was witnessed by the manager of the complainant who was present at the time of inspection and in such a situation the forum’s finding that the scribe of the mahazar was not examined would not entitle the complainant to get the order in his favour. It is further argued that Exts.B1 and B2 were conclusive in proving that the meter was defective and the further replacement of the meter and the higher recording of consumption ought to have been considered by the forum while passing the order. He also prayed for the remand of the case for proving the mahazar that was prepared on 13.2.03 by the opposite party. 7. We find that the bill is for a sum of Rs.1,49,633/- . The forum has cancelled the bill simply on the reason that no affidavit of the person who had prepared the mahazar has been filed. Further the mahazar that was prepared at the time of inspection was produced by the opposite parties and has been marked as Ext.B1. The mahazar would show that the meter was inspected on 13.2.03 and two phase were not functioning and it was witnessed by the Manager Mr.B.S.Raju. The learned counsel’s argument that the opposite party was not given an opportunity to prove his case has to be considered favorably and we feel that this is a fit case to be remitted back to the lower forum for giving an opportunity to the opposite parties to adduce further evidence if any to substantiate their claim. In the result the order dated 6.4.04 in OP.48/03 of CDRF, Kottayam is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower forum for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the opposite parties to adduce further evidence in support of their contentions. In the nature and circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost in the present appeal. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER | 
