The main legal point established is that in cases of defective electricity meters leading to under-recording of energy consumption, the consumer may be held liable to pay for the missed consumption for a certain period preceding the detection of the defect.

Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President—The opposite parties in O.P. 223/1999 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram is the appellant. The complainant challenged the additional bill dated 5.3.1999 stating that he was regularly paying the amount for the consumption and the said bill for Rs. 25,622/- is invalid. In the version by the opposite party/appellant they maintained that the Anti Power Theft Squad discovered phases ‘R’ and ‘B’ of the meter were interchanged as a result of which the meter failed to record 2/3rd of the energy consumed by the complainant. They have now charged the complainant for the 2/3rd consumption from the date of installation of the meter till discovery. The District Forum found that the opposite parties are eligible to collect the charges for the 2/3rd energy only for the period of six months immediately preceeding the detection of the aforesaid wrong connection to the phases R and B; but in the decretal portion the District Forum computed the quantum of energy consumed only for 1/3rd and fixed the liability of the complainant to pay for only the said energy. In the appeal the appellant challenges the said part of the order and also challenges that the view taken by the District Forum that the opposite parties can collect for the consumption only for a period of six months, as according to the learned Counsel the meter, in the circumstance, cannot be treated as defective.

2. On the other hand respondent maintained that the complainant has nothing to do with the wrong connection and he was regularly paying for energy recorded by the meter. In the given circumstance, according to the complainant, since the meter was not recording the actual consumption it has to be treated, under law, as faulty, and consequently they are eligible to collect charges only for six months immediately preceding the detection of the defect. He also maintained that, it is a case where no claim could have been made for alleged additional consumption as according to the learned Counsel the complainant was regularly paying for the actual consumption. Reliance was made by the learned Counsel on the decision of this Commission in Asstt. Executive Engineer Electrical Major Section, Pala & Anr. v. Joseph K. Kootumkal, I (2000) CPJ 383. It is also urged by the learned Counsel there was no report by the Electrical Inspector as to the alleged defect of the meter, therefore, no amount could have been collected towards alleged consumption by the complainant.

3. It will be noted that a respondent who has not filed any appeal can only at the maximum, support the judgment; he cannot claim modification of the decree or the order setting aside of the decree. Therefore, it is not open to the respondent to take a stand that he is not liable at all to pay any part of the claim. In his endevour to support the order he can show that a particular finding should have been in his favour and not in favour of the successful party. That as has noted can only be for the purpose of supporting the decree not for modifying it or setting it aside.

4. Alternatively it has to be noted the case of the respondent cannot be sustained in this regard because it is not as if there was no material before the District Forum as to the connection of phases R and B; as per Exbt. R1 report by the theft squad it was discovered and reported that the said connections were found interchanged resulting in recording only 1/3rd of the consumption. It is stated in the order, P.W. 1 has also signed Exbt. R1. When such is the situation the complainant cannot successfully question the reliability of Exbt. R1 and if as a matter of fact the meter had to be subjected to examination by Electrical Inspector it was open to the complainant himself to deposit the necessary charges for the same and avail the service of the Inspector which the complainant never wanted. Therefore, the finding that the meter was recording only 1/3rd of the consumption on account of the i