Sri.K. Vijayakumaran, President. The complaint filed by the complaint for quashing the bill for Rs.3872/- and compensation and cost. The complainant is a consumer of the opp.parties with consumer No.PT 142 . The above building was not occupied during the months from May 2003 to December 2003. In the bill during the above period it is recorded that the meter is faulty and the meter reader arbitrarily has recorded 150 units as average consumption and issued bill for Rs 262/- as bi monthly rent. Thereupon the complainant filed a complaint before the 1st opp.party. In December 2003 a new meter was installed in the house of the complainant. Thereafter on 4.2.2004 a bill for 2834/- was issued directing the complainant to pay the amount. The complainant paid the amount apprehending disconnection . Thereafter the complainant was paying electricity charges regularly on the basis of the bills issued by the opp.party. While so on 9.3.2005 the opp.parties issued a bill for Rs.3872/- claiming to be the arrears of electricity charges for the period from 7/2003 to 12/03. The rent for the above period has already been remitted by the complainant. Issuance of another bill for the above period is deficiency in service and hence the complaint. Opp.parties filed a joint version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. When the reading of the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant was inspected in 4.6.2003 it was found by the meter reader that the meter is not properly working. Therefore the meter reader after satisfying the complainant of the same issued bill taking 150 units as average consumption on the basis of actual consumption for the previous months. Since there was shortage of electric meters the electric meter in the house of complainant was changed on 20.12.2003. Thereafter the complainant was issued with a bill for Rs.1548/-. After changing the meter the consumer has consumed 369 units of electricity for 44 days and the consumption when worked out for 100 days comes to 503 units and accordingly the above bill was issued. After changing the meter when the consumption of the consumer was watched for 6 months it was noticed that the consumer is consuming 525 units per month. Under clause 31 [c] of the Condition of Supply of Electric Energy the consumer is bound to pay electricity charges at the above rate during the period when the meter was faulty. Accordingly the bill for Rs.3872/- was issued and the consumer is bound to pay the amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party and hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P3 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is Examined. Exts. Marked. Points: The complainant is challenging Ext.P3 additional bill as he has already remitted the electricity charges for the period covered by the same. The case of opp.party is that on 4.6.2003 the meter reader on inspection of the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant was satisfied that the same is faulty and accordingly he issued bill taking the average consumption during the previous months. Subsequently a new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant on 20/12/2003 and when reading taken on 4.2.2004 it was seen that the consumption was 369 units for 44 days and when the consumption for 60 days was worked out it was found to be 503 units and accordingly issued Ext.P1 bill. Thereafter, on examining the reading for 6 months after installation of the new meter it was noticed that the consumer is consuming 525 units per month and therefore Ext.P3 was issued for the period from 7/03 to 12/2003, the period during which the meter is alleged to be faulty. It is worth pointing out in this context that the meter was declared faulty by the Meter Reader and the consumer has not challenged the same but remitted the amount as per the bill issued by the opp.parties on the basis of previous average consumption. The evidence of DW.1 and the version shows that the meter reader himself has issued bill for the alleged faulty period based on previous average consumption and the consumer remitted the amount. Clause 31[c] of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy enables the opp.party to issue bill based on average consumption for 3 units immediately preceding or subsequent 3 months in cases where the meter is faulty. But Ext.P1 is prepared not in accordance with the above clause. Instead 60 days consumption is taken on the basis of the actual consumption for 44 days. It is not known under which provision such a calculation was made. DW.1 himself has admitted in cross examination that he does not know under which provision such a calculation is made. However since the consumer has paid the amount as per Ext.P2 that aspect does not come up for consideration. As pointed out earlier clause 31[c] authorizes the opp.parties to take average consumption for 3 months immediately preceeding or succeeding 3 months when the meter is faulty. If para 4 of the chief affidavit is relied the bill has been issued taking average consumption of previous reading. It is not known under which provision after issuing a bill based on previous average consumption the opp.party issued another bill, Ext.P3 taking average of subsequent 6 months consumption. Either in the version or in the evidence such an enabling provision is shown. Arrear bill for electricity charges cannot be issued according to the whims and fancies of the opp.parties. After collecting electricity charges based on the average consumption for preceding 3 months we are of the considered view that the opp.parties cannot issue another bill for the same period based an average consumption for succeeding 6 months after the installation of a new meter. Clause 31 [c] provides for taking average reading either 3 months immediately preceding or 3 months immediately succeeding. It does not authorize the opp.parties to collect additional charges on the ground that the subsequent consumption is high. Clause 31 [c] also does not mandate to take average consumption for succeeding six months. In these circumstances we are of the view that Ext.P3 is not sustainable. As argued by the learned counsel for the complainant issuance of Ext.P3 amount to deficiency in service. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed quashing Ext.P3 and directing the opp.parties to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 31st day of January, 2009. I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Balakrishnan List of documents for the complainant P1. – Bill dated 4.2.2004 P2. – Receipt P3. – disputed bill List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. - Prasad | 
