KSEB PATTOM Vs. NOHA RUBBERS
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-2-4
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 15,2010

Kseb Pattom Appellant
VERSUS
Noha Rubbers Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) IT is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 5.8.2004 of CDRF Kottayam in OP 86/2004 that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of his Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order the opposite parties are under directions to cancel Exit. A12 the additional bill for Rs. 35,066 and issue a fresh bill for the period from 1.4.2002 to 5.7.2002 in accordance with the norms prescribed under Clause 31(c) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy. They are also liable to pay cost of Rs. 750 to the complainant.
(2.) THE complainant had purchased an industrial unit from one Mr. Devasia and that due to financial difficulties he had to close down the factory from 1998 to 5.7.2002. It is further submitted by him that during the year 1998, the opposite parties replaced the meter on 2 or 3 occasions and that the meters replaced were faulty. In spite of his registered notice, the opposite parties did not care to replace the meter and it was only after remittance of Rs.1,000 that a properly functioning CT meter was installed. However, it is the case of the complainant that on 16.2.2004 he was served with a bill for Rs. 35,066 alleged to be the bill for previous 6 months based on the average consumption of 8/02 and 9/02. The complainant submitted before the Forum below that the said bill is not liable to be paid by him and alleged deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill with compensation and costs.
(3.) THE opposite parties filed version where it was contended that the complaint was not maintainable and it was as per the audit report that the impugned bill was issued. It was submitted by the opposite parties that though the audit report suggested for issuing the bill from 1 /2000 to 7/2003 the same was limited to 6 months as per the prevailing rules and regulations and the complainant was liable to pay the said amounts submitting that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite parties argued for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits from both sides and Exts. A1 to A 20 on the side of the complainant, B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite parties.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.