B SURESH Vs. SECRETARY K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in O. P.43/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam is the appellant. The grievance of the complainant was that the opposite party served a bill alleging to his having consumed excess energy than what was permissible. He maintained that the meter is faulty and, therefore, he is not liable to pay the same. The opposite party in their version sought to justify the bills maintaining that the concerned meter was replaced on 30.10.1996 and the replaced meter recorded the consumption of 1430 units for the period from 30.10.1996 to 3/97. The complainant had to be assessed for the period of six months prior to 10/96. Since the defective meter was working in the premises from 3/97 to 9/97, once the mistake was discovered the correct bill was issued. It is also contended that as per the decision of the Kerala High Court in O. P.5930/85, the opposite party is entitled to rectify the mistake and demand proper charges due from the consumer for the consumption of the actual energy. Therefore, they maintained that the grievance of the complainant cannot be accepted. Before the District Forum the complainant produced Exts. P1 and P2. Complainant gave evidence as P. W.1 on behalf of the opposite party D. W.1 was examined. On a consideration of the said material though the District Forum found that the bill in question was proper but found deficiency as reading was not taken every six months as is required. Therefore, made direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.300/- as compensation with costs Rs.200/-. As already noticed, not satisfied with the said direction the complainant has come up in appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the view taken by the District Forum that the meter in question cannot be treated as malfunctioning is not correct as according to the learned Counsel after the closing of the evidence, the Counsel for the complainant had filed an argument note wherein the complainant has stated that the meter has been replaced by a new one after three days of the closing of the evidence. Even assuming that such an argument note was filed, if as a matter of fact such an occurrence took place the complainant could have filed an affidavit and served copy on the opposite side. Without doing that we do not consider, appellant can advance argument on a question of fact on the basis of a statement in an argument note. Having regard the facts revealed before the District Forum as the complainant has consumed more than what is due to him, we are of the view that the finding entered by the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal is without merit, dismissed.