Decided on May 19,2010

Secretary Manjoor Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham Respondents


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 dismissed.

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