ASSISTANT EX ENGINEER AND ORS Vs. P J JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 28.10.2004 in OP 132/01 of CDRF, Kottayam, that the opposite parties have come up in appeal calling for the interference of this 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 Ex. A18 bill and to pay cost of Rs. 750 to the complainant.

(2.) THE complainant has approached the Forum alleging that the bill for Rs. 1,05,287, issued to him vide notice dated 13.2.2001 is illegal, unsustainable and against the principles of natural justice. It is submitted by him that he had been paying all the electricity bills regularly and that on 17.4.2000 the meter installed in his premises was replaced by a new electronic meter and that the opposite parties said that they have issued the bill based on the consumption recorded in the new meter. The complainant has also a case that he had been remitting the charges as per the consumption recorded in the new meter and that the bill issued after a lapse of 10 months from the installation of the new meter is only to harass him and to make undue advantage from the complainant. It is further submitted by him that both the meters installed in his premises were working properly and that if at all there was low consumption in certain months it was due to low usage and that the opposite parties have no right to collect the amount as per the bill issued on 3.2.2001. Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties, to cancel the impugned bill along with compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of Rs. 10,000.

(3.) THE opposite parties filed version denying the allegations of the complainant. It was submitted by them that the complainant is a commercial consumer and that he had connected load of 61 KW and that the consumption was disproportionate to the connected load and the complaint was put .under surveilance for a considerable period and that they have declared the meter faulty. The opposite parties further submitted that the fact of declaration of the meter being faulty was informed to the complainant and if the complainant was aggrieved by the said declaration he could have taken steps under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. The further case of the opposite parties is that as the meter was faulty they have replaced the meter with a new electronic one on 17.4.2000 and after replacement it was found that there was considerable increase in the consumption pattern and taking the average consumption as 9190 units per month, a bill was issued for the previous 12 months as per clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply. The opposite parties further submitted that the bill was issued as per rules existing in the KSEB and that the complainant was liable to pay the said amount in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint was liable to dismissed with costs.