KERALA STATE CNSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO 434/04

JUDGMENT DATED: 23.2.2010

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN                : MEMBER

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                                   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                        : MEMBER

1. The Secretary,                                                   : APPELLANTS

     Kerala State Electricity Board,

     Pattom, Trivandrum.

2. The Asst. Ex. Engineer, KSEB.,

    Electrical Major Section,

     Thrikodithanam,

    Changanachery.

(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

                  Vs.

Thomas George,                                                    : RESPONDENT

Rajagiri House, Perunna.P.O.,

Changanachery,

Kottayam,

Manaigng Partner,

Sevak Rubbers,

Perunthuruthi.P.O., Izhinjillam.

JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in OP.10/2004 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the additional bill dated 31.12.2003 for Rs.58465/-.  It was alleged that the additional bill was issued without any basis and ignoring the provisions of Clause 31(c ) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.  The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum below and filed version denying  and disputing  the alleged deficiency in service.  They contended that the additional bill dated 31.12.03 for Rs.58,465/- was issued based on the surprise inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad.  It was further contended that there was interchanging of the pressure coil of the phases 1 and 3 at the meter terminal ends.  And thereby only 50% of the consumption was recorded by the power meter.  They justified their action in issuing the additional bill for Rs.58465/-

          2. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B4 documents were produced and marked from the side of parties.  The complainant and the 2^nd opposite party had also filed proof affidavits in support of their respective pleadings.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint in OP.10/2004 and thereby A1 additional bill for Rs.58465/- was cancelled. Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties therein.

          3. We heard both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged  in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He much relied on the proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party and B1 mahasar prepared by the   Asst. Engineer of Anti Power Theft Squad and argued for the position that there was interchanging of the pressure coil of phases 1 and 3 of the power meter and thereby the power meter recorded only 50% of the energy consumed by the consumer.  Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  He argued for the position that B1 Mahasar was not proved by the opposite parties and the A1 additional bill based on B1 mahasar cannot be upheld.  He also argued for the position that the additional bill was issued for short assessment for a period of 6 months and the said method adopted is also not acceptable.  Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

          4. Points that arise for consideration are:-

1)     Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in issuing A1 additional bill for Rs.58465/-?

2)     Whether the Forum below can be justified in setting aside A1 additional bill for Rs.58465/- on the sole ground that the B1 mahasar w