KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.20/08 JUDGMENT DATED : 31/7/09 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. Asst. Executive Engineer, Sub Divisional Office, KSEB, Oachira, Kollam. : APPELLANTS 2. Secretary, KSEB, Vyduithi Bhavan Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.S.Balachandran ) Vs 1. The President, Valiyakulangara, Thekkekara Devaswom Trust, Changankulangara, Oachira.P.O. Kollam. : RESPONDENTS 2. The President, Valiyakulangara Vadakkekara Devaswom Trust, Valiyakulangara, Oachira P.O., Kollam. (By Adv.N.Muraleedharan Pillai) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Kollam in the file of OP 196/04 dated 25/10/07. The appellants are the opposite parties prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. According to the complainants they are joint owners of Valiyakulangara Devi Temple and are the consumers of the opposite parties. They have taken electricity connection with consumer Nos.1291, 11905 and 1256. Consumer No.1256, a three phase electric connection under tariff VI A is taken and used jointly by the 2nd complainant for the general use of the temple and other two meters are used by them separately. On 7/2/03 the consumption of electricity of the three phase electric connection with the consumer No.1256 is assessed by the opposite parties and the same was replaced. On 10/10/03 the opposite parties issued an additional bill for an amount of Rs.7,512/- for a period of 6 months prior to the date of replacement of the meter calculated on the basis of average consumption of subsequent 8 months of the replacement of the meter. The issuance of the bill is illegal as the bill was issued on 10/10/03 for the period prior to 7/2/03, ie, the bill relates to the periods prior to 8 to 13 months from the date of issue, while the maximum period allowed as per the law is six months. The additional bill was issued by the opposite party for the unused electrical energy. The additional bill is issued without getting the same tested by the concerned Electrical Inspector. The bill was issued without showing the details and hence the complaint. 2. The opposite parties filed joint version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The excess bill served to the complainant is in order and prepared on the basis of tariffs rules prevailing in the KSEB. The bill was prepared only for 6 months based on the average consumption after the replacement of the energy meter. The meter bearing consumer No.1256 was faulty for the period from 7/02 to 2/03. There was an under billing happened in this case as the energy meter was faulty for the period from 7/02 to 2/03. The opposite parties are entitled to rectify the mistake and the excess bill was issued by way of rectification of its revenue loss. The meter was declared faulty by the Board’s competent officials and the reading shows a static figure during the faulty period. If the consumers have any dispute regarding the accuracy of the meter it is the option of the consumer to request for testing of the meter by remitting the prescribed fee. This has been laid down in the Clause 35 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy 1990. The excess bill was issued as per rules. No deficiency in service or negligence has arise from the part of the Boards. Hence the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint. 3. There are 2 issues framed by the Forum below, Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and Reliefs and Costs. On the part of the complainant PW1 is examined and marked documents Ext.P1 and P2. On the side of the opposite party witness was cited and examined as DW1 and marked as Ext.B1. The Forum below considered the entire evidence adduced both parties and concluded that the complainant is maintainable. The Forum below relived the evidence adducted by the complainant and allowed the complaint. The Forum below quashed the Ext.P1 additional bill and ordered to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost. The appellants prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day the appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, both parties are present. Heard both sides. 4. The counsel appeared for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not in accordance with the law and evidence. The appellants are competent to issue Ext.P1 as per the statute. The interference of the Forum below in this matter is not legally sustainable. This Commission examined all the evidence adduced by both parties and heard both sides. This Commission is seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable and in accordance with law and evidence. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Forum below. This Commission is seeing that some modifications in the quantum of cost awarded by the Forum below. In the result this appeal is allowed in part and modified the cost of proceedings awarded by the Forum below. Ext.P1 the additional bill is set aside and the appellant/opposite party is directed to issue proper bill in accordance with law and evidence. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings. This appeal is disposed according with the above modifications. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The points of this appeal answered accordingly. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Pk.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
