KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.131/2004 JUDGMENT DATED : 21.2.2009 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.312/03 PRESENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER B.Suresh, Arappura Veedu, : APPELLANT Kaithodu Cheri, Nilamel village. (By Adv.Jaideep.G.Nair) Vs. 1. The Secretary, : RESPONDENTS KSEB, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Madavoor Electrical Section, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint in OP.312/03 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram the complainant filed this appeal calling for the interference of the Commission as to the genuineness of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum alleging that on 15.3.2003, he had brought to the notice of the meter reader that the meter in his premises was faulty and the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.231/-. On 13.5.2003 and 14.7.2003 also adjustment bill for Rs.231/- and Rs.385/- were issued respectively. The complainant’s further case is that eventhough he had made all the above payments, he was served with another penal bill for Rs.12635/-. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for direction to cancel the bill and to reconnect the electric connection, which was already disconnected by the opposite parties. 3. Resisting the complaint the opposite parties filed version interalia contending that during the months of 3/2003, 5/2003 and 7/2003 the meter showed no consumption and the same was faulty in 2/2003 also. It was also contended that on inspection of the premises of the complainant on 14.7.03 dishonest abstraction of the energy was found out and as such the bill for Rs.12635/- was issued towards penalty and cost of the meter. The opposite parties submitted that there was no deficiency in service and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the documents marked from either side as Ext.P1 to P8 and D1 to D7. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the Asst.Engineer of the opposite parties examined as DW1. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued before us that there was no illegal abstraction of energy committed by the complainant as alleged by the opposite parties/respondents. It is also his case that the relative of the complainant had signed the site mahasar without knowing its contents. She was compelled to sign the site mahasar to show that she was present when the inspection squad of the opposite parties came to the premises of the complainant. It is also his case that there was no occasion for the complainant to commit theft of energy as his consumption was very low even during the time when the meter was working properly. He had also disputed the bill by the opposite parties and it is his further case that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as directed by the opposite parties. Arguing that the opposite parties had committed grave deficiency in service by issuing the bill he prayed for allowing the appeal there by allowing the prayers contained in the complaint also. 6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He argued before us that the opposite parties conducted the inspection on 14.7.03 wherein illegal abstraction of the electricity was found out and the bill was issued as per clause 43 of the Conditions of Supply. It was also submitted that the meter was tampered by the complainant and hence the cost of the meter was also liable to be paid by the complainant. In short he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal thereby confirming the order of the Forum below. 7. On hearing both sides and on perusing records we find that the opposite parties’s inspection squad had visited the premises of the complainant and a mahasar was prepared which was witnessesd by the relative of the complainant. It is also noted that meter was faulty during the previous short period and bills were issued based on average consumption. The opposite parties issued the impugned bill on the basis of the connected load and the probable usage of electricity. We find that such procedure cannot be accepted since regulation 43 does not give rise to such a provision as adopted by the opposite parties. It is also noted that the meter was working during the earlier periods and it is based on such readings that consumption was calculated and bills issued during the period in which the meter was found faulty. Hence the only alternative that can be given is to direct the opposite parties/respondents to issue a bill taking the average consumption as the basis for calculating the charges at three times for six months. In the result the appeal is allowed in part thereby the opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh bill based on the findings recorded as above. However the complainant is also liable to pay cost of the meter to the opposite parties along with the energy charges. In the nature and circumstances of the case parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
