KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.498/05 JUDGMENT DATED 7.10.09 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. The KSE Board rep. by its Secretary, Pattom, Trivandrum. 2. The Asst.Engineer, -- APPELLANTS KSEB, Electrical Major Section, Thengana, Kottayam. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. V.A.Vincent, Valolickal (M) Amara.P.O, -- RESPONDENT Proprietor, Poornima Rubber Products, Industrial Estate, Changanasserry, Kottayam. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 28th January 2005 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.382/03. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants/opposite parties for getting the disputed A1 bill for Rs.1,12,305/-cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the impugned A1 bill based on the inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part in issuing A1; that the disputed bill was issued for the non recording of one phase of power meter and so the disputed bill can be treated as one issued for short assessment of the energy consumed by the complainant/consumer. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant filed proof affidavit and A1 to A11 documents were also marked. The opposite parties have also filed proof affidavit and B1 to B3 documents marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant and thereby set aside the disputed A1 bill for Rs.1,12,305/- with a further direction to pay cost of Rs.750/- to the complainant. Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties therein. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties relied on B2 report of the Asst. Executive Engineer, APTS, Kottayam and B3 inspection report dated 5.11.03 and argued for the position that the A1 bill was issued for the electrical energy actually consumed by the complainant. It is also submitted that there was non recording of one phase of the power meter and so the opposite parties are justified in issuing A1 disputed bill for Rs.1,12,305/-. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He further submitted that the Sub Engineer of the opposite party/KSEB has been regularly visiting the premises for the purpose of taking the meter readings and nothing could be found out regarding the alleged non-recording of one phase of the power meter. It is also submitted that the complainant being the consumer under KSEB was regularly paying the current charges for the electrical energy actually consumed by the complainant. Thus, the respondent requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Is there any sustainable ground to doubt the B2 inspection report submitted by the APTS, Kottayam? 2. Whether the appellants/opposite parties can be justified in issuing A1 bill for Rs.1,12,305/- on the ground that there was non recording of one phase of the power meter for a period of 6 months? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.1.05 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.382/03? 5. POINTS 1 TO 3 There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer under KSEB and he has been provided with electricity connection for industrial purpose. It is the definite case of the appellants/opposite parties that one phase of the power meter was not recording the consumption of energy and the said non recording was for the period from May 2003 to October 2003. There is no dispute that the Anti Power Theft Squad, Kottayam conducted surprise inspection of the premises of the complainant on 5.11.03 and prepared B3 mahazar by the Asst. Executive Engineer of the APTS, Kottayam. B2 inspection report was also submitted by the Asst. Executive Engineer APTS, Kottayam. The aforesaid mahazar was also signed by the complainant. In the aforesaid mahazar, it is specifically stated that the one phase of the power meter was not recording the consumption of energy. So, the finding of the appellants/opposite parties that there was non-recording of one phase of the power meter is to be up held. We do not find any sustainable ground to doubt the genuineness and correctness of B3 mahazar and the B2 report. The case of the appellants/opposite parties that there was non recording of one phase of the power meter on the date of inspection of the premises is to be accepted. 6. The appellants/opposite parties issued A1 bill for Rs.1,12,305/-. The said bill is issued for the period from May 2003 to October 2003. According to the appellants the non recording of one phase of the power meter occurred for a period of 6 months. There is no sustainable ground or reason to accept the aforesaid proposition made by the appellants. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the Sub Engineer of the Electrical Major Section, Thengana, Kottayam was inspecting the premises of the complainant on every month for the purpose of taking the meter readings. There is no case for the concerned Sub Engineer that the meter was not functioning properly at any time during his visit for taking the meter readings. So, it can be inferred that the non-recording of one phase of the power meter occurred for a very short period. At the most, it can be considered that there was non recording of one phase of the power meter for a period of one month. At any rate, the conclusion of the appellants/opposite parties that the one phase of the power meter was not recording for a period of 6 months cannot be believed or accepted. So, the Forum below can be justified in cancelling A1 bill for Rs. 1,12,305/-. We are of the strong view that the appellants/opposite parties can very well issue a bill for the short assessment of energy consumed by the complainant for a period of one month. In other words, the one phase of the power meter failed to record the consumption for one month only ie; during the month of November 2003. The appellants/opposite parties will be at liberty to issue a bill for the aforesaid short assessment on the ground that the one phase of the power meter was not recording the energy consumption for the month of November 2003. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified to that effect. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified and thereby the disputed A1 bill stands cancelled. The appellants/opposite parties are at liberty to issue another bill for the short assessment of the energy for the month of November, 2003 as stated above. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out. The order passed by the Forum below directing payment of cost of Rs.750/- to the complainant is also cancelled. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER | 
