Case nº Revision Petition No. 2619 Of 2010, (Against The Order Dated 30/01/2010 In Appeal No. 1104/2004 Of The State Commission Kerala) of NCDRC Cases, February 12, 2015 (case 1. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Cross Field Rubber Co.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. M.T. George, Advocate with Ms. Kavitha K.T., Advocate and For Respondents: Nemo |
| President | Mr. V.K. Jain, Presiding Member and Mr. Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | February 12, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member (Oral)fact
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial