SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)<br /> <br /> The complainant is a doctor in profession. The complainant is a consumer of K.S.E.B with consumer No.3236. The connection was intended for running a hospital at Kattappana. She was paying the electricity bill regularly. On 8.01.2007 the complainant was served with a short assessment bill for the period of 9/00 to 10/01 demanding Rs.30,176/- payable before 22.01.2007. It is not stated in the bill, how the electricity was used and no explanation was given by the opposite parties. The complainant has not done anything unauthorizedly. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complaint has been field for a direction to cancel the bill and to pay compensation.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party filed a written version, wherein it is contended that the bill in question was issued only on the basis of the audit report from the Regional Audit Office, Thodupuzha dated 14.10,.2007. The complainant is running a hospital. Whether the meter was working properly since a hospital having a connected load of 15 KW cannot work with 58 units per month. On 7.08.2001 the Circle Squad found that one phase was not working. The mistake was noticed in the audit and the Audit officer instructed to charge consumption as 757 unit per month. The consumer was reassessed for the period from 9/2000 to 12/2001 based on average obtained after the change of meter is 757 unit per month. So the total bill comes to Rs.30,176/-. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any of the direction sought for.<br /> <br /> 3.The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party never appeared after filing written version and was exparte at the time of evidence.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- Admittedly, the complainant took electric connection to he hospital and she was paying electricity charges regularly ranging between Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per month even according to the opposite party. Now the dispute relates to short assessment bill issued by the opposite party. The complainant has given evidence as PW1. Ext.P1 is the copy of bills issued by the opposite party on 18.06.2006 to 18.12.2006. In that bills, the minimum unit was 447 on 18.09.2006, and maximum unit was 666 on 18.12.2006. Ext.P2 is the copy of the short assessment bill as Rs.30,176/- dated 8.01.2007. PW1 is not cross examined. Ext.P2 bill was issued as per the direction of the Regional Audit Office, Thodupuzha. No other documents produced from the opposite parties. Now the main grievance of the complainant is that the bill was issued after 6 years and the procedure to be followed to take the average of the consumption is not correct. There is no material evidence to show that one phase was not working. The bill dated 8.01.2007 would show that it represents the arrears for the period 9/00 to 10/01. According to the opposite party, the meter became faulty during that period and one phase was not working. The unit was arrived at by taking the average consumption for the period 10/01 to 12/01. No explanation is offered for not changing the faulty meter. Moreover in the audit report, it is contended that the meter was working properly since a hospital having a connected load of 15KW cannot work with 58 units a month. There is no material to see whether the faulty meter was replaced. So the claim for arrears at the average rate at 757 units per month for all throughout the period cannot be found to be scientific and realistic. Normally the procedure to be followed is to take the average of the consumption of six months after the new meter is installed. There was lapses on the part of the employees in reporting the fault of the meter. It seems that in Ext.P1 bills, the average meter reading is only nearly 500 units. In the present bill produced which is of 2006, by working all the facilities in the hospital, the average meter reading comes only nearly 500 units. So the claim for arrears of the average rate at 757 units per month cannot be correct. By producing the electricity bills prior to the disputed Ext.P2 bill as well as the bills issued after the installation of the new meter, the complainant contended that the electricity charge is not calculated as the average 6 months of the consumption. Therefore the impugned bill Ext.P2 is to be cancelled and the opposite party should reconsider the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity for the complainant of being heard.<br /> <br /> In the result, the petition allowed. Ext.P2, Short Assessment Bill dated 8.01.2007 is cancelled and the opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh bill limiting the claim for the correct meter reading after giving notice to the complainant. To re-consider the matter after giving an opportunity to the complainant of being heard. <br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the Ist day of July, 2008 <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> <br /> SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> <br /> I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> Sd/-- <br /> <br /> I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) <br />