A KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                            VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM                                                                                                                   

                                       APPEAL NO.299/10

                             JUDGMENT DATED 15.3.2011

PRESENT

 JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU               --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

1.      The Kerala State Electricity Board

Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,

Thiruvananthapuram.                      

Reptd. by its Secretary.                            --  APPELLANTS

2.      The Asst.Engineer,                                                                        

          KSEB, Electrical Section,

          Manarcad.                    

             (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

                   Vs.

T.M.Mani

Thengumthuruthel House

Kuzhipurayidamkara,                                          --  RESPONDENT

Manarcadu.P.O.Kottayam.

   (By Adv.M.R.Bindu)

                                                JUDGMENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER

The order dated 29.4.10 in CC.220/09 of CDRF Kottayam is assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel Ext.A2 bill dated 17.8.09 for Rs.1,02,611/-.

2. The complainant’s case is that he is conducting a Rubber Company for earning his livelihood and on 16.7.09  the APTS of the opposite parties conducted an inspection and alleging that there was an error of -8.70% in the power meter of petitioner, the impugned bill was issued.  It is his very case that he is not liable to pay  the said amount as there was no error in the   meter and he was regularly paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties.  Alleging negligence and deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for direction to cancel the impugned bill for Rs.1,02,611/- and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-  and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

3. Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties filed version wherein it was contended that on inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) of the opposite parties on 16.7.09,  the power meter  of the complainant reflected a difference of  -8.70% in the meter  and that a site mahazer was prepared in which the findings were recorded and it was subsequent to the said findings that the petitioner was  issued a bill for Rs.102611/-  for the last 12 months.   It  was submitted that no penal charges were collected and it was only the escaped consumption that was billed and the complainant was liable to pay the bill amount.

4. Evidence consisted of the affidavits filed by both parties.   Ext.A1 & A2 on the side of the complainant and B1 to B4 on the side of  opposite parties were marked.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside  on the ground that the impugned bill was issued based on the actual error found of by the opposite parties after installing a test meter and also that the complainant was convinced of the error in the recording of consumption.  It was also argued by him that the mahazer that was prepared at the time of inspection would clearly show that the bill issued was under cogent grounds.  It was also his case that when the meter was faulty, the complainant was liable to pay charges for the previous 12 months. 

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the forum below.   It is argued that the bill issued was on presumptions and assumptions which cannot be supported and in the instant case the meter was not subjected to any expert testing.  The veracity of the site mahazer  is also disputed  by the learned   counsel who has also relied on the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in M.P.E.B Vs. Basantibai  (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 71)  where  it is held that when there is a dispute regarding the meter, the same has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector and  the Electricity Board cannot issue  a supplementary bill when the matter is pending.   She has also argued for the position that the appeal is to be dismissed with the compensatory costs.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants/respondent and also on perusing the records, we find that the opposite parties have issued the bill based on the site mahazer  prepared by the opposite parties consequent to their inspection on 16.7.09.  It is also seen  that the bill is issued for a period of 12 months prior to the date of inspection on the presumption that there was a difference in the consumption for the meter.  On a perusal of the site mahazer, we find that the opposite parties had installed a check  meter and  had come   to the conclusion that there was a difference of -8.70% in the recording of consumption in the existing meter.  The appellants/opposite parties have also a  case that when there is some error in the meter   they are empowered to charge for a period of 12 months prior to  the date of   the defect in the meter.  It is to be noted that the opposite parties have found the defect after testing the consumption by installing a check meter, which is tested and found correct by the Electrical Inspector.   However, it is to be noted that the opposite parties were taking meter readings from the premises of the consumer and if there was some error in consumption they could have immediately noted the said reduction in consumption.  Though the appellants would argue that they are empowered to realize for a period of 12 months we are  not inclined to accept the said contention of the appellants as in the site mahazer itself it is recorded that the seals were intact and the complainant had no role in the defective functioning of the meter.  In the said circumstance, it is our considered view that the complainant cannot be sadddled with the imposition of the bill for a period of 12 months.  We find that a bill for a period of 6 months would be just and proper to meet the  ends of justice.  Forum below has canceled the whole bill which cannot be supported.  We feel that the opposite parties are empowered to issue a bill for a period of 6 months according to the findings arrived at by them.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above.  Thereby, the appellants/opposite parties are empowered to realize charges for a period of 6 months. However suitable instalments are to be given to the complainant for the remittance of the said amount without surcharge or penal interest.  In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  --  MEMBER

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT