<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed seeking quashing of electric bill, compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is a consumer of the opp.parties. The complainant has purchased a property wherein electric meter having Consumer No.2071 situates. The complainant has filed O.P.No.73/2005 for getting back the excess amount collected from him towards electricity charges which is pending. While so, on 25.2.2005 the opp.parties issued a bill on the basis of wrong reading. As per the bill the complainant has used 23 units but the meter reader arbitrarily decided that the consumer consumed 136 units and accordingly the opp.parties have issued a bill for Rs.233/-When the complainant questioned the same the meter reader mis- behaved and threatened the complainant that if the amount is not paid the supply will be disconnected. In the bill a sum of Rs.20/- was collected towards meter rental. The conduct of the opp.party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.parties filed version contending that, the name of the consumer of electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant one is Stanly Ferndus but the name of the consumer was not transferred to the name of the complainant so far. The meter reader on 28.12.2004 found that the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant is faulty and accordingly on the basis of previous consumption issued a bill. The fact that the meter is faulty was brought to the notice to the complainant also. As per the average of the previous consumption for 7 months it was noticed that the complainant has consumed an average of 147 units. Accordingly the bill was issued for which the opp.party have every right. It was after declaring that the electric meter is faulty that the bill was issued. The rotation of the disk of the electric meter in the complainant’s premises is very slow which was noticed by the officers of the opp.party. This information is recorded in the abnormality register. The opp.party is ready to install new meter and after taking reading the excess amount if any collected will be refunded. Due to the non availability of sufficient electric meter the electric meter at the residence of the complainant could be installed only on 2.3.2005. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties . Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are: <br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties <br /> 2. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 is marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points 1 and 2:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant is challenging Ext.P1 bill on the ground that it is issued nor for the actual consumption as recorded by the electric meter but by taking average consumption as per 7 precedent bills because of the inimity of the meter reader towards him. In O.P.73/2005 between the same parties in respect of the very same matter we have found that the disputed bill therein was illegal and we quashed the same. In that case also the contention of the opp.parties was that the meter was a faulty one. However, even on the date of issuing Ext.P1 herein the opp.parties neither arrange for the test of the meter by the competent authority or to replace the same. Ext.P1 herein was also prepared taking average of proceeding 7 bills which as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant is against the statutory provisions. When the statute prescribers for taking immediately preceding 6 months average the conduct of the opp.parties in taking average of immediately preceding 7 bills is illegal. It is true that the opp.parties have every right to collect the charges for actual energy consumed by a consumer. When there is dispute regarding the actual consumption the burden is on the opp.party to establish that the meter is faulty and that the reading recorded by the same is not the actual reading. In this case even after there was dispute regarding the earlier bill issued in December 2004 and a case is pending Ext. P1 was issued adopting the same procedure for issuing the earlier bill for which the opp.party has no right . When there is dispute the meter ought to have been checked by the Electrical Inspector concerned at the earliest opportunity for which no application from the party is necessary<br /> <br /> The prayer of the complainant is only to issue bill for actual consumption which according to him is 23 units. After contending that the meter is a faulty one and the same is challenged by the party before Forum, the opp.parties are not justified in issuing further bills without complying with the statutory proceeding. As pointed out earlier the procedure adopted for preparing Ext. P1 is also illegal. It has come in evidence that a new meter has been installed in the premises of the complainant on 2.3.2005. The opp.parties can issue a revised bill based on the immediately succeeding 3 months average after the installation of new meter. For all that has been discussed above we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties and that Ext.P1 is illegal and liable to be quashed. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed. Ext.P1 bill is quashed directing the opp.parties to issue revised bill based on succeeding 3 months average after 2.3.2005. The amount paid as per Ext.P1 will be refunded. The opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation and costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> .<br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Justin<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Disputed bill dated 25.2.2008.<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – Abdhul Latheef<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. – Meter reading Register<br /> D2. – Meter changing Register<br />