KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.584/06

  JUDGMENT DATED 8.9.2010

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          -- MEMBER

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                        --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      The Secretary,

KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2.      The Ex.Engineer,                         --  APPELLANTS

          KSEB, Thiruvalla.

3.      The Asst.Engineer,

          KSEB,Mallappally.                        

            (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

                    Vs.

Alias Cherian,

Chethicad Industries,                               --  RESPONDENT

Kunnamthanam, Mallappall,

Pathanamthitta.

  (By Adv.Ajaykumar B)

                                                JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.118/03 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta.  The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing an additional bill for Rs.10,482/- based on inspection of the meter installed at the premises of the complaint.  The complainant prayed for getting the impugned bill cancelled.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service.  They contended that the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer was found defective, that based on the inspection B1 mahazer was prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad.    It was contended that one phase of the energy meter was not recording the consumption because of loose contact at that terminal.  Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing the additional bill. 

          2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and A1 to A7 documents were marked on his side.  From the side of the opposite parties, the Asst. Executive Engineer of KSEB was examined as DW1.  B1 copy of the  mahazer and  B2 copy of the meter reading register were marked on the side of the opposite parties.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 21^st June 2006 allowing the complaint in OP.118/03.  Thereby, the impugned bill was cancelled and the opposite parties were directed to refund the bill amount of Rs.10,482/-  which was  collected by the opposite parties/KSEB  from the complaint.  It was also directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount with compensation of Rs.1,500/- and costs of Rs.1000/-.  Hence the present appeal.

          3. We heard both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties much relied on B1 mahazer and the testimony of PW1.  He argued for the position that the energy meter installed at the premises of the respondent/complainant (consumer) was not recording at one phase of the 3 phase meter and the additional bill was issued for the aforesaid short assessment of the energy consumption.    On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum bellow.  He argued for the position that B1 mahazer has not been proved properly and there is nothing on record to show that there occurred   short assessment of consumption of energy.  Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

          4. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer of electrical energy under KSEB and that the complainant was consuming energy for his small scale industrial unit under the tariff LT IV.  Admittedly, there was inspection of the energy meter by the Anti Powe