Back
2011(2) CPR 194
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member; Valsala Sarangadharan and S. Chandra Mohan Nair, Members
The Assistant Engineer and Anr. —Appellants
versus
The Secretary Manjoor Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham —Respondent
Appeal Nos. 533/2005 and 534/2005
Decided on 19.5.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Sri B. Sakthidharan Nair, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M/s. Jaison Palivil, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Revised bill can be issued only when it is prove that meter is not showing correct reading.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 14(1)(d) 15 and 17—Electricity bill—Direction to cancel bill in question and to issue revised bill as also to pay cost of Rs. 500/- Bills in question were issued pursuant to detection of additional load and incorrect recording of consumption—Impugned bills were issued by opposite parties to complainant on different date showing different reasons—Opposite parties had detected unauthorized additional load in premises of complainant—But, bill issued was for a higher connected load which has to be revised—Bill cancelled by District forum on finding that there was no evidence to show that meter was recording only one third of consumption—Appellants have failed in producing any records to show that meter was recording only one of its phases and other two phases were not recording—Impugned directing of District forum upheld—Appeal partly allowed with liberty to appellant to collect penal charges. (Paras 9 and 10)
S. Chandra Mohan Nair, Member—The above appeals are preferred by the opposite parties in Ops 531/2001 before the CDRF Kottayam, who are under directions to cancel ExtA5 bill for Rs. 83,640/- in OP No 531/2001 and Ext. A6 bill for Rs. 28,975/- in OP No 615/2001. The opposite parties are also under directions to issue revised bills for consumption under clause 31 (c) of the conditions of supply for the periods included in the respective Ops and also to pay costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant in the respective cases.
2. OP 531/2001 was filed by the respondent/complainant on the ground that the bill for Rs 83,640/- which was marked as Ext. A5 was issued to him consequent to the filing of a complaint by the complainant before the forum as op No 376/2001. The complainant has alleged that it was to wreak vengeance for filing a complaint that the opposite parties have issued the impugned bill dated 28-09-2001. It is his further case that there was no reason warranting the issue of such a bill and the complaint was filed to cancel the impugned bill and also to cancel the subsequent bills issued during the month of 06/01 to 01/01 along with compensation and costs.
3. OP 615/2001 was also filed by the same complainant alleging that the bill for Rs. 28,975/- marked as Ext. A6 was issued without any basis. It is his case regular bills were paid by him and he has also paid the additional cash deposit demanded by the first opposite party and he prayed before the forum that the said bill also is liable to be cancelled with compensation and costs.
4. The appellants/opposite parties filed separate versions before the forum contending that the bills were issued consequent to the detection of additional load and also finding that only one phase of the meter was recording the correct consumption. It was submitted by them that Ext.A5 bill was issued on detection of additional load of 15 KW which was found connected to the existing load without the prior sanction of KSEB. They have also produced Ext. B2 site Mahazar in support of their case. With regard to OP 615/2001 the contention raised by the opposite parties was that on inspection of the premises of the complainant it was found that only one phase of the meter was recording consumption and as such the usual procedure adopted was to calculate twice the recorded consumption and accordingly the bill was issued for the charged for the escaped consumption. Thus, they submitted before the forum that there was no deficiency of service on their part and the Ops were liable to be dismissed.
5. The evidence consisted of the affidavits filed by the petitioner, the second opposite party and scribe of the Mahazar marked as Ext B2. Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite party.
6. Heard both sides
7. The learned counsel for the appellants in the above appeals submitted before us that the common order passed by the forum below in Ops 531/2001 & 615/2001 is without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstance of the case. It is his very case that the forum below misconstrued the facts and evidence and has passed the order causing huge loss to the KSEB. It is also argued by him that the bill for Rs 83,640/- was issued consequent to the detection of unauthorized connected load and the bill for Rs 28,975/- was issued consequent to the detection that only one phase of the meter was recording the consumption and the other two phases were not recording the consumption. The learned counsel has further argued before us that the acts of the complainant fall under misuse of electrical energy, which is a malpractice, and hence the forum had no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the issues raised by the complainant. It is the still further case of the learned Counsel that the forum below had discarded Ext. B2 Mahazar on the ground of a clerical mistake, which was corrected in the affidavit. He has invited our attention to the fact that the two Mahazars which were marked as B2 and B3 were
