Date of Filing:12.0L.2024 Date of Disposal :09. 0L.2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PRINCIPAL BENCH DATED, THIS THE 9th DAY OF JANUARY 2026 PRESENT HON,BLE MT JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKAREGOWDA:

PRESIDENT HON,BLE MTs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER sc/29lAlLatl2024

1. The Executive Engineer (Ele), Chamundeshwa ri Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC), O & M Division, B M Road, Santhepete, -

Hassan 57320L.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), Chamundeshwa ri Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC), O & M Sub-Division, B M Road, Santhepete, -

Hassan 57320L.

(By Mr H V Devaraju, Advocate) Appellant -Versus-

Shri R Suresh, S/o Sri Rangegowda, Aged about 50 Years, M. Hosakoppalu, Hassan Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk & District - S732Ol.

( Notice Served-Absent) Respondent : ORAL ORDER:

PER: MT JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GoWDA:

PRESIDENT This Appeal is filed U/S 4L of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Opposite parties (in short, the OPs)challenging the Order dated 10.08.2023 passed in Consumer Complaint No.01/2021 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hassan (in short, the District Commission).

2.

Appellants were the OPs and Respondent was the Complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to, as per their status before the District Commission.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that, the Complainant was the owner of a Saw Mill since 2014. He had availed power supply from the OPs, with an installation Meter bearing No.HSP64548. On 29.t1.2019, OPs issued a direction, stating that for an installation of HSP64548 scl 2e/Al18tl2o24 meter, the multiplier applicable is 10, but during the period from April 20t4 to November 2019, the TRM software, the multiplier was missed. Therefore, for the period from April 20L4 to November 2019, revised bill has been raised and the Complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1,34,894/-. Complainant is required to pay as it was erroneously missed out in the Bill. While receiving the revised bill, the Complainant observed that during the year 2014 to 2019, he has paid Rs.67,690/- which was not reflected in the revising bill and no deduction was given to this effect in the bill. Hence, Complainant got issued a Notice to the OPs, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and filed the complaint before the District Commission.

4.

Before the District Commission, OP has opposed the Complaint by filing his Version, admitting power supply given to the Complainant in Meter Number HSP No.64548 and it has justified in demanding Rs.1,34,894/- as the multiplier was missed out while bill was raised earlier.

in service and sought for dismissal of the Complaint.

5.

Before the District Commission, Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as PW1, 4 documents came to be marked as Ex C-1 to C-4. On behalf of OPs, one witness has filed his affidavit evidence as RW1 and Ex R-1 to R-6 came to be marked.

6.

The District Commission after hearing the arguments of both the parties, allowed the Complaint in ^part and directed the OPs to withdraw the demand notice dated 29.tL.2019 issued to the Complainant, demanding excess the period from April 2014 to November 2019 and ^also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for, Hence, bill was corrected. Therefore, there is no deficiency costs.

in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation ^Aggrieved by the same, OPs have ^preferred this ^{present Appeal'}

7 We have heard arguments of the learned Counsel, Bill amount of Rs.1,34,894/- to Meter No.HSP64548 for the OPs. Notice was served with the Complaint, ^{but he} remained absent.

scl 29lAlt81/2o24

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs that, it is not a case of back billing, but, as the installation required a multiplier of 10, there was a mistake committed on the past Meter Reader, instead of applying multiplier 10, he applied 1, which came to the knowledge of the OPs only in the month of November

2079.

Therefore, the Bills fo