ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KEB Vs. K SUBBEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by original opponents in Complaint No.189/92-93 before the District Forum, Mysore, challenging the order dated 3.4.1998 directing them to refund a sum of Rs.19,552.60 with interest @ 12% p. a. from November, 1992 till payment and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- within a period of 4 weeks failing which the awarded amount to fetch interest at 18% p. a. till realisation.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : the complainant is running a Rice Mill as a Proprietor of Sri Beereshwara Rice Mill. The Karnataka Electricity Board serviced the installation of the complainant on 11.2.1991 having a sanctioned load of 75 HP under LT-5 tariff. The meter was MNR from the date of service due to counter trouble in the meter. On a complaint, the KEB replaced it with a good meter on 16.5.1991. The Board issued a bill for a sum of Rs.7,163/- in March, 1991 and for Rs.39,632/- in May, 1991. Then the complainant preferred an appeal to the Superintending Engineer, who is appellant-2, in this appeal by paying 25% of the demand bill dated 12.6.1991. The said bill was pending before the 2nd appellant for nearly one year. The complainant was informed that the meter was not recording for three months and three days from the date of service, i. e.11.2.1991 till the date of replacement, i. e.16.5.1991 and he had to be billed as per Regulation No.29.03 of ESR, 1981. Since the 2nd appellant had not passed an order, the complainant filed Writ Petition No.28707/92 and the Hon'ble High Court directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- in order to restore power supply and directed the 2nd appellant to re-determine the back billing charges and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity to the complainant. The second appellant allowed the appeal and ordered to issue revised bill taking average of 12 months readings after fixing a good meter and directed the complainant for payment within 15 days the said amount as per ESR 29.04. Since the opposite party had submitted a wrong billing, the present complaint was filed before the District Forum.

(3.) On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties raised several contentions regarding maintainability of the complaint as it was for commercial purpose. It has also submitted that the meter was tested prior to installation and it was found to be correct. Since later it was found by KEB on the complaint made by the complainant that the meter was not recording, the opposite party issued a revised bill under Regulation 29.03 ESR and, therefore, the claim made by the opposite party was legal and valid and requested the District Forum to dismiss the complaint.