Decided on May 12,2009

HAJIRA Respondents


S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER - (1.)IT is aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2001 in OP. No. 441/2000 of CDRF, Thrissur that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel the bill dated 10.12.1999 for Rs.18,758 and to issue a fresh bill for the period of 6 months after taking average consumption consequent to the replacement of the meter with a new one. The opposite parties are also directed to re -fix the tariff by taking average reading recorded in the new meter.
(2.)THE complainant approached the forum with the grievances that though he was remitting monthly charges regularly, he was served with an additional bill dated 10.12.1999 for Rs.18,758 alleged to have been for the excess consumption for the period from 2/93 to 11/99. It is also his case that he had not consumed so much of energy as shown in the bill and the opposite parties had not taken any readings once in every 6 months and the re -fixation charges at Rs. 562 per month, is without any basis. Alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to cancel Rs. 18,758 and to revise the tariff of the complainant at Rs. 68 and to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation.
(3.)THE opposite parties in their version contended that the complainant has no legal stand to file the complaint as the connection stands in the name of Beera, S/o, Sulaiman and that the complainant has not given any application to change the connection in her name. It is also submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant was remitting charges @ 20 units per month only and on taking meter reading it was found that the complainant has consumed 8,360 units for the period from 2/93 to 11/99 and it was for the excess consumption that the bill was issued. It is the further case of the opposite parties that the energy charge was fixed after taking average consumption. It was found to be 105 units per month and contending that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The evidence consisted of Exts.P1 to P3 documents produced by the complainant. The meter that was installed in the premises of the complainant was tested and the report was marked as Ext. C 1.

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