ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. This is a complaint seeking to quash the additional bill issued by the opp.parties. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized asx follows: The complainant is running a coir manufacturing Industry. He is a consumer of the opp.party with a Consumer No.11210. While so, even though there was no fault to the electric meter installed in his premises on 2.7.2005 the same was changed with an electronic meter and he was issued with an additional bill on 16.8.05 for Rs.27733/-. The amount claimed in the above bill is not due from the complainant. The issuance of the above bill is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the complaint. Opp.party filed a version contending , interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. On 5.6.2005, the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was burnt in lightning and the meter was replaced by a static meter on the same day itself. When the reading was taken on 8/2005, it was found that the consumption during the month was 7757 units. On the basis of the reading a bill for Rs.27,733/- was issued to the consumer dated 16.8.2005. The contention of the complainant that the newly installed meter is faulty is baseless and against the facts and hence denied. On verification it is found that there was a leakage of current which leads to hi9gh consumption due to wiring fault. It is the duty of the consumer to keep the wiring and other equipments of his premises in good condition and make sure that there is no leakage and earth fault from time to time. The Board is no way responsible for current leakage due to improper wiring and other instrument fault of the consumer. The defects of the wiring is made known to the consumer by Board officials themselves and later the complainant has rectified the defects. Thereafter normal reading is recorded in the very same meter. The bill issued on 16.8.2005 was for Rs.27,733/- by the second opp.party is as per the consumption shown in the correct meter. The 2nd opp.party has issued the disputed bill in good faith and according to existing rules. Hence the consumer is bound to remit the same. The contention of the complainant that there is deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opp.party is baseless and against facts. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P8 marked. For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext.D1 toD3 marked. Points The complainant is challenging Ext.P1 additional bill on the ground that the same was issued arbitrarily and unlawfully. According to the complainant the mechanical electric meter installed in his premises had no fault and it was replaced by a faulty electronic meter. The case of the opp.party is that the mechanical meter installed in the premises of the complainant was burnt in lightning hence it was replaced by an electromic meter. Excess consumption occurred due to the leakage of current. The complainant in his cross examination admits that the electronic meter was installed due to the burning of mechanical meter in lightning. The opp.parties have no case that the complainant has tampered the mechanical meter. According to the complaint the newly installed meter is faulty. Opp.parties contention is that the high consumption was occurred due to the leakage of current due to wiring fault. On verifying Ext.P2 series, it is seen that the average current charge of the complaint was Rs.850/-. Only in Ext.P1 high consumption was happened. According to opp.party it was occurred due to wiring fault. But the opp.party was not produced any evidence for that. In the absence of cogent materials it cannot be said that high consumption occurred due to wiring fault. No reasonable explanation could be furnished for this sudden spurt in the consumption shown by the meter in the month of July 2005. In the version filed by the opp.parties it is stated that when a complaint was received about the accuracy of the electric meter installed, the second opp.party inspected the meter and found that there was no defect in the functioning of the meter. But the opp.party has not produced any report showing that the newly installed meter had no fault. Some legal method should have been adopted to check the meter, which had not been adopted. From the mere fact that the 2nd opp.party inspected the meter it cannot be said that he checked the meter in accordance with rules and regulations of the Indian Electricity Act. The procedure adopted is illegal. Hence the consumption as recorded in the month of August 2005 appeared clearly wrong and the bill issued on the basis of the said consumption was rightly to be quashed. In the result the complaint is allowed, quashing Ext.P1 additional bill and directing the opp.parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 . I N D E X List of witness for the complainant PW1. - Bhrmanandan. List of documents for the complainant P1– Excess bill dated 16.8.2005 P2. –Prior Bills No.11 between 18.9.2004 to 18.7.2005 P3. Bill dated 26.9.2005 P4. – Copy of DD P5. – Complaint send to the 2nd opp.party dated 3.10.2005 P6. – Bill from 19.10.2005 to 15.5.2006 P7. – Money Order coupons[ 7 Nos.] P8. – Postal receipts List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – Ajilal List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Letter dated 27.9.2005 D2. – Meter changing Register D3. – Extract of Meter reading for a period from 7/05 to 3/2006 | 
