By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:

Brief of the Complaint:-

The Complainant is a domestic consumer of Opposite Party with connection No. 2925. Average bimonthly consumption of the complaint is 250 units. On 23.4.2005, a spot bill showing bimonthly consumption of 1583 units demanding sum of Rs. 9,107/- was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant filed a complaint with the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party deputed 1^st Opposite Party to conduct a spot inspection. The 1^st Opposite Party conducted a site visit and without conducting a detailed inspection of meter he submitted a report stating that electric meter tested and found O.K. The Complainant again made a petition to 2^nd Opposite Party to reexamine the meter. Thereafter the meter was thoroughly inspected by 1^st Opposite Party and found that the current coil of the one phase of the meter was not working. It is evident that the meter was faulty and the amount demanded was erroneous. Anyhow the Complainant paid the amount under protest on 16.5.2005. Complainant has filed C.C. 20/07 and the same was dismissed by the Forum for non jointer of necessary parties. The Complainant was produced 1996(1) KLT Page 12 short notes case No.16 in which Hon'ble High Court held that “Former suit dismissed on a technical ground of non jointer cannot operate as resjudicate. It is prayed in the complaint to pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainant.

1. A sum of Rs.9,107/- collected from the Complainant with 18% interest till the payment is made.

2. To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation and cost of this complaint.

2. Opposite Party appeared and filed version. In the version they admitted that the Complainant is a consumer under them as connection No.2925. He filed C.C. No. 20/07 before the Forum and the same was dismissed by the Forum. Hence the complaint is hit by resjudicate. The consumption recorded in 4/05 is 1538 units. As per the same demanded to pay Rs.9,107. They also admitted that they have received two complaints from the Complainant suspecting the genuiness of the bill. 1^st Opposite Party inspected the meter and found O.K. At the 2^nd inspection it was found that one phase of the meter was not working. It was only after 4/05 that the meter became defective. The bill was issued for actual consumption and the consumer is liable to pay the amount. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with the cost of the Opposite Party.

3. Considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and costs.

4. Point No.1:- To prove Complainant's case he has produced his chief affidavit. He has produced Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 series are the 7 Electric Current charge bills of consumer No.2925. These are the some of the bimonthly bills from 20.4.2004 to 23.12.2005. On perusing the bills it is found that except the bill dated 23.4.2005 the consumption of the consumer is 243, 289, 144, 343, 284 and 352 units. That bills includes before and after of the disputed bill dated 23.4.2005. In the disputed bill the consumption is 1538 unit. Ext.A2 and A3 shows that on getting the same the Complainant made complaint before Opposite Parties without any further delay. In the second inspection conducted by Opposite Party there is some defects noticed in the meter. Ext.A5 shows that the same was replaced. After installing the new meter bimonthly consumption of the Complainant is 284 and 352 units. It means the higher consumption noted in the bill dated 23.4.2005 is due to some defects of the meter installed there. Ext.A4 shows that the Complainant remitted the amount with protest. The Opposite Parties ought to have reduce the bill after consumption of the Complainant in the new meter installed by them. Not revising the bill is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

5. Point No.2:- The Complainant is entitled to cancel the disputed bill dated 23.4.2005 for 1538 units. Opposite Parties have to issue fresh bill for the period from 17.2.2005 to 23.4.2005 taking the average consumption of the Complainant recorded in the new meter installed by the Opposite party. Deduct the bill amount from Rs.9,107/-. The balance amount is to be treated as advance payment paid by the Complainant towards electric current charge. He is also entitled to get all the benefits declared by the KSEB and given to the consumers who pays the current charge in advance. Opposite Parties have to issue a bill showing all the details mentioned above.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Parties are directed to cancel the bill dated 23.04.2005 for 1538 units issued to the Complainant. Opposite Parties are directed to issue a fresh bill for the period from 17.2.2005 to 23.04.2005 taking the average consumption of the Complainant recorded in the new meter already installed at the time of dispute. Deduct the bill amount from Rs.9,107/- (Rupees Nine thousand One hundred and Seven only). The balance amount is to be treated as advance payment made by the Complainant. He is entitled to get all the benefits declared by the K.S.EB to the consumers who pays the current charge in advance. Opposite Parties are directed to show all the details in the next bill which will be issued to the Complainant. The order is to be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 22^nd April 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Mathai Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 series. Demand and Disconnection Notice.

A2. Copy of Letter. dt: 26.4.2005.

A3. Copy of Letter. dt:7.5.2005.

A4. Copy of Letter. dt:16.5.2005.

A5. Copy of Letter.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.