KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL:276/2008 JUDGMENT DATED:01..03..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT 1.KSEB, Repd. by its Secretary, Vydhudhi Bhavan, Pattom, TVPM. 2.Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB, Kalpetta, Wayanad. : APPELLANTS 3.Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Head Quarters, Vydhudhi Bhavan,Pattom. (By Adv: Sri.S.Balachandran.) Vs. Wyanad Metals, Ponnada, Repd. by its Managing Partner, M.N.Devi Prasad, : RESPONDENT Ponnada, Maniyancodu, Kalpetta, Wayanadu. (By Adv: Sri.P.S.Harikumar) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP:169/04 in the file of CDRF, Wayanadu. The energy bill issued by the appellants for a sum of Rs.80,030/- stands set aside. They are also directed to pay compensation and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is running a crusher unit. On 3/6/2004 the officials of the opposite party inspected the premises and recorded a mehazar mentioning that CT coil A and B phases are found open. The request to have the faulty meter sent for inspection was not heeded. A bill for Rs.80,030/- was issued on 23/6/2004. The same has been sought to be set aside. 3. The opposite parties have contended that the APTS conducted inspection on 3/6/2004 and it was found that phases A and C are open and only B phase was working. A mehazar was prepared and the complainant has signed in the mehazar. The defective phases were replaced. The bills issued are for escaped energy for the period from 2/04 to 5/04. Only on a detailed verification of the meter the defects found could be ascertained. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 to A6. 5. On an examination of Ext.A4 bill it is seen that the opposite parties have billed the complainant for 4 previous months. There is no explanation as to how the back assessment for 4 months were done. The defect in the CT meter could have taken place on the particular day or any date previous to that. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to bring out that there was substantial variation in the energy consumed during the above 4 months. 6. In the circumstances we are inclined to confine the bill for one month. The order of the Forum setting aside the entire bill cannot be sustained. 7. In the result the order of the Forum is modified as follows:- “The complainant would be liable to pay 1/4th of the amount of Rs.80,030/-. The opposite parties are directed to collect only the above amount from the complainant. The appeal is allowed in part as above. Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL | 
