SECRETARY, KSEB, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. SAJUMON K, LICENCEE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, PETROL BUNK, KODUNGOOR, KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is directed against the order dated 19th April 2005 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.246/04. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.10,000/ - and also for getting the disputed bill dated 13.9.04 (Ext.A1) cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the disputed bill dated 13.9.04. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version disputing the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer under the opposite party/KSEB and that the electricity supply is being given for running a business and so the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further contended that the disputed bill was issued based on short assessment of the energy charges and that the meter was faulty from April 2002 and so there was only a provisional assessment of the energy consumed. Thus, the opposite parties requested for dismissal of the complaint.

(2.) BEFORE the Forum below the complainant as well as the second opposite party/Asst. Executive Engineer filed proof affidavits in lieu of examination in chief. Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B3 were also produced and marked from the side of the parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the forum below passed the impugned order and thereby set aside the disputed A1 bill. The opposite party has been given the liberty to issue fresh bill demanding energy charges for consumption of energy for the month of August 2004. The claim for compensation was dis -allowed. The opposite parties are also burdened with the payment of costs of Rs.750/ - to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) WE heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He relied on Exts.B1 to B3 documents, especially B2 meter reading register and canvassed for the position that the meter was faulty and the faulty meter was replaced on 20.3.03. It is further submitted that after the installation of new meter the average monthly consumption was 788 units per month. Thus, the appellants justified their action in issuing the impugned bill dated 13.9.04 demanding a sum of Rs.11,108/ - by way of short assessment charges for the period from September 2002 to February 2003. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the forum below. He also relied on B2 meter reading register and submitted that the opposite party/KSEB had already invoked the provisions of Clause 31 (C) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy and thereby assessed the consumption of energy at 584 units per month, based on the average consumption for the previous 3 months. Thus, the respondent challenged the legality of the impugned A1 bill dated 13.9.04. The points that arise for consideration are: -