KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.874/2012

JUDGMENT DTD : 29.07.2013

PRESENT

SMT.A.RADHA                                 : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS            : MEMBER

1.Suresh.V.A

Sub Engineer,

Electrical Section,

KSEB, Mathilakam

2.The Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Section,

KSEB, Mathilakam

                                                                      APPELLANTS

3.The Senior Superintendent,

Electrical Section,

KSEB, Mathilakam

4.Ramaprakash.K.V

Assistant Engineer,

Anti Power Theft Squad,

KSEB, Palakkad

5.The Secretary,

KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram

(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

                          Vs.

C.A.Basheer,

Proprietor,                                                       RESPONDENT

Global Plastics,

Mini Industrial Estate,

Vekkode.P.O

(By Adv.Jose Varghese &

Adv.Rajatha P.Jacob)

JUDGMENT

SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER

                                 The opposite parties are the appellants who came up in appeal aginst the order in CC.No.93/07 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur.

                                 2.    The complainant’s case is that he was issued with a notice to pay Rs.60,418/-. The bill was issued after the inspection conducted by the APTS squad on 08.01.07 and a mahazar was prepared. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant was regularly paying the electricity bills. The inspection squad found out a mistake in preparing the electricity bill in the calculation of the reading. The actual consumption of electricity is to be calculated 40 times of the reading shown in the meter where as the electricity bills issued on the basis of 20 times of the reading. The complainant challenged this bill as it is without any basis.

                                 3.    The complainant was having an industrial connection and he was paying the bills regularly. On 08.01.07 the APTS squad inspected the complainant’s premises and found out that a mistake was crept in preparing the electricity bill. The CT meter calculated to the electricity meter was of CT 200/5A proportion. So the actual consumption of electricity was 40 times of the reading shown in the meter where as the electricity bill was issued for only 20 times of the reading. This mistake was rectified and issued the bill to the complainant on 09.01.07 for an amount of Rs.60,418/-.

                                 4.    The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. No oral evidence given by the opposite parties.

                                 5.    It is the argument of the appellant that the bill issued to the consumer had a mistake in multiplication factor. The APTS squad found out this when they inspected the premises of the complainant and issued an additional bill rectifying the defect. The meter reading was assessed on a multiplication factor of 20 instead of multiplication factor of 40. The mistake is by over-sight and is a human error. The counsel also argued that under Regulation 25 of Electricity Supply code the Board is entitled to recover the arrears of payment. The inspection report is marked as Ext.C1.

                                 6.    The respondent’s counsel opposed the disputed bill as there is no tampering of the meter. He also pointed out that no notice was given to the complainant and also denied the natural justice to file objection. Another contention is that the calculation mistake is done by the employee of the opposite party and the mistake is to be penalized against