G.PRABHAKARAN Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.34/03 that the complainant has come up in appeal calling for the interference to this commission as to the veracity and sustainability of the order dated. 30.7.04 passed by the forum below.

(2.) The complainant approached the Forum alleging that he was served with an additional bill for Rs.18,722 illegally and that he is not liable to pay any amount covered by the bill. It is his case that he had been remitting the electricity charges without fail and that the opposite parties were issuing bills in every two months and further that there was no occasion for him to consume electricity over and above the units shown in the bills issued to him. It is also the case of the complainant that he did not know about the alleged inspection by the officers of the opposite parties on 8.1.03 and that he came to know about it only when he approached the opposite party after getting the bill. The complainants further case is that the bill issued is without any basis and the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in issuing the said bill and it is prayed that the bill is to be cancelled with cost.

(3.) The opposite parties in their version contended that the complainant is having 3 phase connection and that one phase of the meter was not working when the inspection squad went to the premises of the complainant and inspected the premises. It is contended by them that a site mahazar was prepared and it is based on the site mahazar that they have charged for the escaped consumption for 6 months. The opposite parties also contended that the complainant is liable to pay the amount covered under the bill and that there was no deficiency of service on their part. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.