M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties, who suffered an award in the hands of the lower forum, on complaint by the respondent/complainant, are the appellants.
(2.) The respondent/ complainant is drawing energy from the appellants/ opposite parties, through service connection No.20-111 B, for running rice mill. As a prudent consumer of electricity, the respondent/ complainant, used to record the actual consumption, by verifying the meter daily and the same is also recorded in a note book maintained by him. On 24.2.2003, the complainant noticed that the meter was not working. Immediately, he informed the opposite parties about the non-functioning of the meter, which was attended by the appellant, by replacing a new meter, in the place of old meter. But unfortunately, the opposite parties, issued a notice, directing to pay a sum of Rs.7919/-, threatening that the non-payment would lead to disconnection. The calculation made by the electricity department, is erroneous and their demand to pay Rs.7919/- is also not reasonable. The request of the complainant, to defer the demand ended in vain, resulting a complaint before the lower forum, seeking direction to set aside the demand, as well as claiming compensation of Rs.25000/- in addition to cost.
(3.) The opposite parties in their written version, would contend that there was no proper and actual reading of the consumption by the meter, in the service connection No.20-111B, that as per the formula followed, taking average amount, the complainant was directed to pay the amount of Rs.7919/- which represents the average consumption charges, for the two assessment period only, for which no amount was paid, and therefore the question of setting aside the demand order does not arise for consideration.;