O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party, Electricity Board with vide Consumer No. 1873. According to the petitioner the meter of the petitioner was not working properly, after repeated complaints made by the petitioner, the opposite party replaced the meter of the petitioner in December, 2005. On 24..7..2007 a short assessment bill dtd: 20..7..2007, for an amount of Rs. 11,844/-, was issued to the petitioner, for the meter faulty period. According to the petitioner the act of the opposite party in not replacing the faulty meter and issuance of the short assessment bill is a clear deficiency of service. So, the opposite party prays for cancellation of the short assessment bill dtd: 20..7..2007 and also he claims Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 1500/- as cost of the proceedings. -2- The oposite party entered appearance and filed version conteting that petition is not maintainable. According to opposite party the meter of the petitioner was faulty prior to November 2000. Due to accute shortage of meters the faulty meter could be replaced only on 19..11..2005 so, the meter remained faulty for morethan 60 months. Opposite party contented that the petitioner was being billed for an average consumption of 330 units, bimonthly, for the entire 60 months, till the meter was replaced. According to the opposite party short assessment bill was issued as per clause 24 (d) of the Electricity Supply Code 2005 and the opposite party contented that there is no deficiency of service on their part. So, they pay for a dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced the copy of the bill dtd: 4..8..2007 for an amount of Rs. 11844/- and said document is marked as Ext. A1. According to the opposite party meter of the petitioner was faulty prior to November 2000. The counsel for the petitioner argued that as per section 56 (2) of the electricity Act 2003 no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after a period of 2 years from the date when such some become first due unless such some has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear -3- of charges for electricity supplied. Here Ext. A1 is dated 20..7..2007 ie. after the commencement of the Electricity Act, 2003. We are of the opinion that issuance of Ext. A1 bill after a period of 2 years from the date when such sum become first due is not legal and proper. Further more non replacement of the faulty meter for a period of 5 years in our opinion is a clear deficiency of service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1 , petition is to be allowed and petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result the bill dtd: 20..7..2007 with vide bill No. 24884 for an amount of Rs. 11,844/- is quashed. Opposite party is also ordered not to disconnect the electricity connection of petitioner for the above mentioned bill. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of November, 2008.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
