<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint filed by the complainant seeking to quash the electric bill and other reliefs:<br /> <br /> The complainant is the proprietrix of M/s. Lekshmi Ice Plant, which is engaged in the production and sale of ice and allied products. The complainant is a consumer of the opp.parties vide Consumer No.12549. The complainant has been regularly paying the electricity bill without any delay. While so, on 8.12.2004 the electronic meter installed in the Ice Plant of the complainant was dead. The complainant reports the matter to the opp.party who came there on 10.12.2004. Though they were satisfied that the meter was not functioning they have changed the meter only on 17.12.2004. In the meanwhile 13.12.2004 the opp.party issued a bill demanding Rs.84,677/- towards the electric charges for the month of December 2004. The above bill issued on the basis of average consumption for the previous 3 months. Since the average consumption was taken on the <br /> basis of a non- functioning meter the bill is not proper and therefore, the bill may be quashed.<br /> The opp.party filed version contending inter alia that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per the complaint received from the complainant the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Sakthikulangara inspected the premises of the complainant and found that there is not electric display in the power meter hence action was taken to replace the faulty meter. As the meter with sufficient capacity was not immediately available at the store. The consumption for the month of December 2004 calculated by taking the average consumption for the previous 3 months. In accordance with Clause 31 [c] of the conditions of supply of Electrical Energy. The average consumption from September 2004 to November 2004 was found 23080 units. The consumption for the light meter was found to be 152 units and the bill was issued. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party and the consumer is liable to pay arrear the electric charges as per the bill issued. <br /> <br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> [I] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> [ii] reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Exts P1 to P3 are marked.<br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked.<br /> Points [I] & [ii]<br /> <br /> <br /> The contention of the complaint is that Ext.P1 bill issue is not sustainable in law as the same was issued on the basis of meter reading taken from non-functioning meter. According to the complainant the meter installed at her premises became static on 8.12.2004 and the fact was reported to the opp.party on the same day. But the meter was replaced at only on 17.12.2004. But in the mean time on 13.12.2004 the opp.party issued Ext.P1 bill without deciding the matter by the electrical inspector.<br /> <br /> According to the opp.parties the bill issued by them is valid and sustainable. It is argued that this bill was issued under the provisions of Clause 31 [c] of the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy by taking 3 months average consumption immediately prior to the month in which the bill was issued. It is further argued that the complainant never filed any application for checking the faulty meter by the Electrical inspector which can only be due to the fact that the complainant had no dispute regarding the consumption of electric energy as per Ext.P1.<br /> <br /> <br /> It is worth pointing out in this context that even according to the complainant the meter became faulty on 8.12.2004. The complainant has no case that there was any fault to the meter up to 7.12.2004. In fact PW.1 has admitted in cross examination that Ext.P3 series bills are ranging from Rs. 54,000 to 1 lakh and that she has paid those bills without any complaint it is to be noted that the complainant was aware that the meter became faulty on 8.12.2004 and if she was aggrieved by Ext.P1 bill she could have immediately sought for checking the meter by the Electrical Inspector which she has not done for reasons best known to her. Under Clause 31 [c] of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy the opp.party can issue bills on the basis of average consumption of Electrical Energy during the previous months. As pointed out earlier the complainant has no case that the electric meter installed in her premises became faulty on any occasion earlier than 8.12.2004. Ext.P3 series bills have also been paid by her. So there is no harm in taking average consumption of Electrical Energy by the consumer as per P3 series and issue bill. Merely because the meter became faulty on 8.12.2004 it cannot be said that the average consumption taken on the basis of the consumption of previous month is based on a faulty meter, because reading up to 30.11.2004 alone is taken for preparing Ext.P1. In these circumstances we find that Ext.P1 is sustainable and the complainant is bound to pay electric charges as per Ext.P1. It has also come in evidence that the defective meter has been replaced though with some delay and the delay has been explained it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties as contented.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed . No costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 30th day of November, 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY: <br /> <br /> ADV. RAVI SUSHA : <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />