KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.30/06 JUDGMENT DATED 12.1.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT The Asst.Engineer, Electrical Section, Balussery, Kozhikode. 2. The Chairman, -- APPELLANTS KSEB, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. T.Lohithakshan, Valiyaparambil House, -- RESPONDENT Nanminda.P.O, Kozhikode District. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in OP 11/2004 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he is running a business in Room No.1/10 of the Nanminda Panchayath and that he was made to pay excess charges for 1000 units on account of the mistake in calculating the meter reading. He has sought for a sum of Rs.8100/- to be refunded. The opposite party/appellant in the version filed has admitted that there was a mistake in calculating the meter reading and an additional amount of Rs.654/- was billed on the basis of the incorrect calculation. It is pointed out that the above remittance was adjusted in subsequent bills. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8. The Forum has relied on Ext.A3 adjustment invoice wherein the last reading noted is 9528 and the prior reading is shown as 8908 and the total consumption is noted as 1620 units. There is a mistake in this regard as the correct balance will be only 620 units. The Forum calculated the amount as 1000 units x Rs.5 taking Rs.5 as the energy charge per unit. The Forum has noted that the contention of the opposite party that the amount calculated in excess was adjusted in subsequent 3 bills stands not established as no evidence in this regard was adduced by the opposite party. It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that in the version filed it has been explained that the excess collected amount was only Rs.654/- and that the above amount was adjusted in 3 subsequent bills and that only Rs.100/- collected as surcharge and Rs.20/- only remains to be adjusted. The counsel has also pointed out that in the affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the petition filed to amend the complaint; it is specifically admitted by the complainant himself that at the rate of Rs.317/- in the bills of 12/2000 and subsequent bills the amount has been adjusted. The appellant has also produced the photocopy of the above affidavit. Hence, I find that the order of the Forum in this regard cannot be sustained. The order of the Forum is set aside. All the same as admitted by the appellant a sum of Rs.120/- remains to be adjusted. The appellant would adjust the above amount in future bills. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU-- PRESIDENT | 
