By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint are that the petitioner is a consumer of respondents vide consumer No.218. The respondents had issued a bill of Rs.2333/- for the period of 9/98 to 9/99. The petitioner was under the impression that the huge bill was on the basis of a defective meter. So the complainant had put an application before the respondents on 2.11.99 to test the meter. The respondents informed that if he is remitting the above-mentioned amount they are ready to send the meter for testing. Hence the petitioner has remitted the amount. Later on 5.10.01 a letter was received by the complainant stating that the meter tested by the meter testing unit and found no defect and was also demanded to pay Rs.7554/-. The meter is to be tested by the Electrical Inspectorate and not by the testing unit of the K.S.E.B. The amount sought to be remitted is high and petitioner is not liable to remit it. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The averments in the counter is as follows. The connection under consumer No.218 is a domestic connection. On March 99 the defective meter has replaced. At that time the electricity charges were imposed on the basis of provisional invoice card system. As per that Rs.55/- was the current charge of complainant per month. After the change of meter it was found that he has used 925 unit of electricity for five months and the current charge comes to Rs.2333/- and invoice issued to that effect. Later the complainant put an application stating the defects of meter and a new meter was installed and the old meter was taken for inspection to the meter-testing unit. No abnormality was found and a copy of the report was served to the complainant also. The meter installed on 2.11.00 is still working. The complainant has not taken any steps to inspect the meter by the Electrical Inspector. As per the spot billing bill has issued, but not paid and there is arrears of Rs.7554/- from 2/2000 to 9/2001. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Hence dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are:<br /> <br /> (1) Is the complainant liable to pay the bill amount of Rs.7554/-?<br /> (2) Is the complainant entitled to get back the remitted amount?<br /> (3) Is there any deficiency in service?<br /> (4) Other reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and Exts. R1 to R10.<br /> <br /> 5. All the points are considered together. According to the complainant, the reading is taken from a defective meter. So he is not liable to remit the amount sought and also entitled to get back the remitted amount. According to the petitioner, the defective meter has to be tested by the Electrical Inspector, but the meter has tested by the testing unit of KSEB. But the petitioner has not taken any steps to inspect the meter by electrical inspector. He has not put an application to that effect. The new meter has installed on 2.11.00 and till now that meter is functioning and no complaint has alleged. As per Ext. R1 certificate the meter has not functioned on 5% load or below the 5% load. Hence the entire unit of consumption was not available from the meter. So the arrears sought are not arbitrary and excessive. Hence he is liable to remit the bill amount stated in Ext. P2 and also the amount of Rs.7554/- from 2/00 to 9/01. There is no service deficiency on the part of respondents. <br /> 6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is directed to pay the amount of Rs.7554/- by three equal monthly instalments consecutively. The first instalment shall pay on 17.10.08. The Ext. P2 amount which was already remitted by the complainant need not be returned. No order as to cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 17th day of September 2008.<br />