ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. This complaint filed by the complainant to set aside the alleged bill dated 26.11.2007 , compensation and cost. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is the son of Sri.P.K. George. The said George expired on 16.4.1996. An electric connection was availed in the name of George from the Electrical Section. Perumpuzha as consumer lNo.1417. The complainant is running a super market under the name “Padavila Super Market.” The complainant is remitting electricity bill regulary without any default. On 20.8.2007the complainant started a franchisee of Supreme Bakers in the Super market. Some space is provided for accommodating the backer and as per the conditions imposed by the management of the Supreme Bakers, Two A.C.’s and computer for billing purpose were provided in the franchisee premises. Even though for regularizing the additional connected load, application was given to the authorities concerned. But they refused to accept the application stating that the consumer as per their record is Sre. George since George is expired proper records from the village office concerned has to be produced along with the application. Then the complainant applied before the village office concerned for getting the documents. So far the complainant did not received the documents. On 22.11.2007 the Sub Engineer of Perumpuzha visited the premises and inspected the 3 phase static meter. In the report itself it is stated that the seal of the meter is in proper condition. Further the Sub Engineer stated that the two phase of the static meter is not functioning. . Without conducting any test or checking the static meter properly they replaced with a new static meter. Even after installing the new meter a bill was issued on 1.12.2007 . In the bill also for 9 days the consumption is only 140 units, ie. Averaging a days unit comes to 15.5. units a day. Taking the average consumption of 15.5 units a day for bimonthly bill the consumption comes to 930 units. Bill for the month of October the unit consumed is 845 units. From this data itself it can be seen that the earlier static meter was not faulty. On 26.11.1007 a bill was issued based on the inspection conducted on 22.11.2007 stating that the complainant has to pay Rs.58,427/- on or before 10.12.07 Even the paid amount by the complainant is also not correct. The opp.parties are making hasty steps to disconnect the supply. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed version contending, interalia, that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is the son of the registered con summer of Ele. Section, Perumpuzha with consumer No.1417. The registered consumer of the connection is Sri.P.K. George, Padavila House, Kundara. The tariff of the connection is LT. VII A the complainant had unauthorized connected additional load of 6 KW. In the premises Since as per the service connection agreement, ownership change is required fro regularizing the load. On 22.11.2007 the Asst. Engineer, APTS., Kollam had inspected the premises along with the Sub Engineer, Perumpuzha and found that the energy meter is faulty, since the two phases of the meter is not working. The inspection team had tested the meter in the presence of the complainant and convinced him. A detail site mahazar had prepared by the Sub Engineer, Perumpuzha in the presence of the complainant and he had acknowledged it. After verifying the consumption pattern, a short assessment bill for the unrecorded energy for previous one year and for the unauthorized addl. Load of 6 month had issued from this office On receipt of the bill the complainant approached this forum without remitting the short assessment bill . There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties 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. Relifs and costs. For the complain ant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P7 are marked. For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Points: In this case the question to be decided is whether Ext.P5 the short assessment bill issued by opp.party is legal or to be quashed. Complainant’s case is that he is a prompt consumer of the opp.parties. On 22.11.1007 surprisingly opp.party 3 visited the premises and inspected the 3 phase static meter and stated that the two phase of the static meter is not functioning. Without conducting any test or checking the static meter properly he replaced it with a new static meter. On 26.11.2007 a bill was issued by the opp.party stating that the complainant has to pay Rs.58427. According to opp.party on inspection by APTS with opp.party 3 it was found that the energy meter was faulty because the two phases of the meter was not working. A detailed site mahazer was prepared. After verifying the consumption pattern a short assessment bill [Ext.P3] for the unrecorded energy for previous one year and for the unauthorized additional load of six kilowatt had issued and the complainant is liable to pay the Ext.P3 bill. On verifying Ext.P4 series during the year 2007 the maximum consumption recorded by the meter was 480 units, except to the consumption in October 2007. Complainant admits that on 20.8.2007, he had started a franchisee of supreme bakers in his premises and after that the consumption increased and the energy consumed is properly recorded in the meter. Even after installing the new static meter a bill was issued on 1.12.2008. In that bill also for 9 days the consumption is only 140 units ie for bimonthly bill the consumption comes to 930 units. Complainant contended that without conducting any test or checking the static meter properly, opp.party replaced with a new static meter. Complainant has not complaint about the defect of the prior meter. Opp.party is claiming that the two phase of the meter was not working properly. But no test report of the meter is produced before the forum for proving the defect of the meter. Opp.party admits in the site mahazar that the seal of the meter is in proper condition. Without conducting any test to the meter by the electric inspector, the opp.party has no right to say that the meter is faulty. Moreover for proving the site mahazar, opp.party did not examine the person who prepared the mahazar. DW.1 has no direct knowledge about the Ext.P3 site mahazar.. Hence the finding of the opp.parties that the meter is faulty is not correct. Under this circumstances the issuing of Ext.P5 short assessment bill cannot be justified. There is deficiency in service on the side of opp.parties. In the result the complaint is allowed. Ext.P5 short assessment lbill dated 26.11.2007 is quashed. O9pp.parties are directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.1000/-0 as cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 31st day of October, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Suresh.P. George List of documents for the complainant P1. –Franchise payment P2. – Notice P3. – Copy of site mahazar P4. – Electricity bills P5. – Bill dated 26.11.2007 P7. - Bill dated 1.2.2008. List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1 -Manoj | 
