<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant filed this complaint for canceling the illegal demand cum disconnection notice.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is a consumer of the opp.party under Consumer No.,456005074 of Electrical Section, Thangassery under Tariff LT IV. The complainant is paying the bills without default. While so the demand notice for the year 2002 January to December were issued and the complainant has paid the amount as per the demand notices dated 5.6.2006 The 2nd opp.party issued a demand cum disconnection notice demanding an amount of Rs.10,618/- as energy charge for the period of 4/02 to 9/2002 The complainant is no way liable to pay the said amount. The complainant’s workshop for which the connection is taken is a small scale Marine Workshop where the energy consumption vary due to the seasonal nature of work. The demand cum disconnection notice is issued illegally and arbitrary and hence the complainant prays to cancel the bill.<br /> <br /> The opp.party filed a joint version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Consumer is a industrial consumer under LT IV . The consumer was provided with three meters, one is for the power load, the 2nd one is for the welding load and the third one is for the light load. The bill dated 5.7.2006 for Rs.10618/- issued to the consumer includes the regular monthly demand for 5/2006 and a short assessment due to non assessment of average for the meter for welding load for the faulty period from 4/2002 to 9/2002. The amount for the regular monthly consumption in the bill is Rs.3884/- and the short assessment amount is for Rs.6734/-. The short assessment bill amount Rs.6734/- was included in the said bill as per the inspection report of the Regional Audit Officer, Kollam No. RAO/AA O/06-07 dated 15.5.2006. The electric meter connected to the welding load was faulty from 11/2001 and the same was replaced on 31.10.2002. When the new electric meter was installed on 31.10.2002, it recorded a consumption of 447 units in 12/02, 425 units on 1/2003 and 242 units in 2/2003. Thus there is an average consumption of 371 units per month. Taking the average consumption of 371 units the demand for 6 months ie from 4/2002 to 9/02 was assessed as Rs.6734/-. Accordingly the consumer was charged . The bill dated 5/7/2006 is issued as per Clause 31 [C] of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, in accordance with the prevailing rules and not arbitrary and bound to pay by the consumer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<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 /> No order evidence adduced by the complainant. Ext. P1 and P2 marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party party DW.1 is examined. No documents marked.<br /> <br /> Points 1 and 2<br /> <br /> The main contention of the complainant is that the claim as per Ext. P1 is barred by limitation. Ext.P1 bill is in respect of the period from 4/2002 to 9/2002 and the bill is dated 5.6.2006 from which it is obvious that the claim relates to a period beyond 3 years and as such as argued by the competent it is barred by limitation.<br /> <br /> Another contention of the complainant is that Ext. P1 is unsustainable in the light of the decision of the High Court of Kerala reported in John P. Stephan V/s. KSEB [2000[3] KLT SN 7 page No.7]. It is argued that the complainants welding meter was stated to be faulty by the opp.parties but they have no case that there is any tampering by the complainant. The opp.parties are regularly visiting the premises of the complainant and charging inspection fee and the fault of the meter is not because of any fault on the side of the complainant. In the decision referred to above the High Court has held that when the meter is found faulty and in the absence of tampering or fraud by the consumer only six months prior period demand can be made. Ext.P1 as pointed out earlier relates to a period more than 3 years beck and as such it is illegal. Issuance of Ext.P1 shows that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties. For all that has been discussed above we find that Ext.P1 is illegal and unsustainable. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed quashing Ext.P1 bill. The opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards compensation and costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> I n d e x :<br /> List of witnesses for the complainant:: NIL<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Notice dated 5.6.2006.<br /> P2. – Electricity Bills.<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – N. Muraleedharan<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parties : NIL<br /> <br /> Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br />