KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioners, which shows that the notice stands served upon the respondent on 28 -01 -2015. No one has appeared for the respondent despite service of notice in the aforesaid manner. We have, therefore, proceeded to hear the revision petition on merit.

(2.) THE complainant/respondent was a consumer of the petitioner Kerala State Electricity Board, he having taken an electricity connection from the said board. An inspection of the premises of the complainant was carried out on 09 -08 -2000 and during the said inspection it was found that though the seals of the meter were proper and the meter was also working, the second phase of the meter was not working. Based upon the said inspection, a bill of Rs.55,395/ - was raised by the petitioners on the ground that part consumption had escaped billing on account of non -working of one phase of the CT meter. The bill pertained to the period from Feb.2000 to Aug.2000. The aforesaid bill was challenged by the complainant before Kerala High Court, by way of writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the complainant to prefer an appeal before the Executive Engineer, against the demand raised by the board. In the meanwhile, another inspection of the premises of the complainant was carried out on 27 -07 -2001. At that time, it was found that one lead of the CT meter had been pulled from the terminal, as a result of which the electricity consumed through that phase of the meter was not getting recorded. The complainant then approached the concerned Executive Engineer for redressal of his grievance. He directed the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer to issue a bill for the unbilled period from 09 -08 -2000 to 14 -05 -2001. A bill of Rs.87,556/ - was accordingly issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer to the complainant. Claiming deficiency in the service on the part of the Board and its officials, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking cancellation of all the three bills issued to him and refund of the amount of Rs.20,000/ - which he had deposited with the Board.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the Board inter alia on the ground that during inspection on 09 -08 -2000 they had found that one phase of the CT meter was not recording actual consumption for which a bill of Rs.55,395/ - was raised by them in accordance with law. It was further stated in the reply that during a subsequent inspection carried out on 27 -07 -2001 they found that lead wire of the CT fitted with the meter had been pulled out from the energy meter. Finding a case of theft of energy they disconnected the supply and made assessment for theft of electricity. The said assessment resulted in issue of a bill of Rs.26,281/ -. It was further stated in the reply that the final bill of Rs.87,556/ - was issued by them consequent to the directions of the concerned Executive Engineer, given while disposing of the appeal filed by the complainant in terms of the direction given by the High Court.