The case of the complainant is as follows:He had availed an electric connection to his unit having consumer No.2830. He was conducting the business of production of rubber materials, for his livelihood under self employment scheme as an S.S.I Unit. The meter is kept sealed in the premises of the business unit. An officer of the opposite party who was not below the rank of sub-Engineer, used to take monthly meter roading. The complainant has no access to the meter as it is the property of the opposite party as it is kept locked and sealed. The average monthly consumption of electricity of the firm for the last 6 months from 11/06 to 4/07

was 8048 unit. The complainant has been regularly paying

-2-

electricity charges as demanded by the opposite parties. On 29.5.2007 Divisional squad of opposite parties conducted an inspection in the unit of the complainant. On inspection they found that 'Y' phase of power meter was not working properly. But it was also found that the other two phases are working properly. It was found that the non-functioning of 'Y' phase was due to the fault of meter. The actual consumption was not recorded in the meter. After curing the defects they have sealed the meter properly. On 31.5.2007 the opposite parties issued a bill as an amount of Rs.85,111/- for the un-recorded consumption for the period from 11/06 to 4/07. It was worked out on the basis of total consumption for the period divided by 2 (48290= 24245). Accordingly this energy charges for 24145- of unit

2 has to be paid as an additional charges. Under law and facts the complainant is not bound to pay the amount to the opposite party as the fault of the meter happened not due to the fault or mistake of complainant. Since the fault must have occured after the inspection for the month of April 2007, there was no reason to charge the additional bill for last 6 months at the above rate. The complainant was not bound to pay the amount on the consequence of a faulty meter. The disputed bill dated 31.3.07 was excessive, exorbitant, illegal and made without any basis. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

The notice was served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows: The service connection provided by the opposite party to the complainant was paying the electricity charges as and when the bills were issued on 29.5.2007 the Division squad consisting of two Assistant Executive Engineer and one sub-Engineer and other employees of the KSEB

-3-

inspected the premises of the petitioner as a routine inspection and it was found that the 'Y' phase of the power meter was not working. There was a 3 phase connection given to the complainant and non-recording the 'Y' phase connection of the meter. As a result of non-recording of 'Y' phase only 2/3 of actual consumption was recorded in the meter and the bills were issued according to the defective meter recording. The non-reading of the 'Y' phase of the power meter can not be detected while taking the meter reading because it was a single meter reading device. The complainant was not penalised or charged for any fault from his part and he was only assessed for the used electricity through a faulty meter and its un-recorded. The demand is only actual consumption of electricity and the complainant was bound to remit it. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

The complainant filed proof Affidavits and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 to A3. The opposite parties filed proof Affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits B1 and B2.

Heard both sides we have gone through the complainant, Vaikom documents and evidences of both sides.The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had issued additional bill without any basis. According to him the bill was illegal and he was not bound to remit the amount. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the opposite parties has a duly to point out the violation kept in reliable of the said legal position they produced a decision reputed in 2003 (3) KLT. But that citation has no application in this case because in the said dictum the hon'ble High court states about ''go wrong off minor parts of system'' here the case that consumption was not recorded through the 'Y' phase. The opposite party has taken a contention that the complainant

-4-

'Y' phase was not working and hence not recording proper meter reading. According to opposite parties the bill which was issued to the complainant was the actual consumption of electricity, because there was not recorded the reading through % 'Y' phase. As far as the opposite party is concern the squad inspected the meter of the complainant and found that the 'Y' phase was not recorded the consumption through the meter. Admitedly the opposite party has not charged any penal interest or penality etc. The complainant has not a case that the opposite party had issued the bill amount for not consumed electricity. Admitedly there was not a case that the meter tampered or damaged due to the physical act of the either party. There was no evidence to show that the complainant has not consumed the electricity for the disputed period through the alleged non-recording 'Y' phase. Moreover the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he was not consumed the alleged electricity. Thus we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be dismissed.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. Both parties will suffer their respective costs.