KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

           APPEAL:492/2006

                             JUDGMENT DATED:22..01..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

1.The Secretary,

   KSEB, Pattom, TVPM.

2.The Asst. Ex. Engineer,                                  : APPELLANTS

   KSEB, Cherthala.

3.The Asst. Engineer,

   KSEB, Pathirappally.

(By Adv: Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

          Vs.

Sri.Varghese,

Arattukulangara House,                                      : RESPONDENT

Omanapuzha, Pathirappally.P.O,

Alappuzha.

                                                   JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in OP:275/04 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  Appellant is under orders to adjust the excess amount collected in two bills in the future bills and also to pay cost of Rs.350/-.

The case of the complainant is that the energy meter installed in the premises was not working and that the same was informed to the opposite party but no steps were taken.  Subsequently notice was issued.   Later the meter was replaced but the calculation made after replacing the meter was incorrect and the same resulted in excessive consumption ie in the bill dated:30..9..2004 for a sum of Rs.523/- and in the bill dated:16..11..2004 for a sum of Rs.480/-.  According to him subsequent to the replacement of the meter on 16..11..2004 consumption of energy for 9 days was only 19 units.  Hence according to him the daily consumption would work out to only 2.11 units.  If so the monthly consumption would work out to only 130 units.  Hence he has sought for getting the excess amount realized adjusted in future bills and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

According to the opposite parties the meter was replaced 3 times earlier.  The average consumption was taken after replacing the meter in 11/04 the consumption worked out to 237 units.  According to them there is no deficiency of service.

The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1, Exts.A1 to A9, B1 and B2.

 The Forum has upheld the contention of the complainant that the consumption per day would work out only to an average of 2.11 units and hence the bimonthly consumption would work out only to 130 units.  On the other hand, it is seen from Ext.B2, the copy of which was produced by the appellant that the appellant has calculated the units consumed after the replacement of the meter on the basis of the difference in the last reading of the old meter and the previous reading plus the reading in the new meter for 9 days.  Evidently the above calculation is incorrect.  As per the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, in case of replacement of defective meter the proper procedure is to take the average consumption of 3 months after replacement or for 3 months prior to the date on which the meter became defective and then charge accordingly.  The same was not done in the instant case.  The contention of the complainant also cannot be upheld as he has calculated the average consumption on the basis of the reading of 9 days which has been upheld by the Forum.  Hence we find that the order of the Forum is liable to be set aside as the appellant has also not calculated the reading properly ie on the basis of the average consumption of the subsequent or previous 3 months.  Hence the 2 bills issued in 9/04 and 11/04 is set aside.  The appellant is directed to calculate the average reading as stipulated in the statute and issue fresh bills and if  there is excess collection the same is to be adjusted in the future bills.

In the result appeal is allowed in part as above.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VL.