ASSISTANT ENGINEER Vs. SECRETARY MANJOOR KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Secretary Manjoor Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham
Click here to view full judgement.
S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER -
(1.) 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.
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
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.