O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. The case of the petitioner's is as follows: The petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board. Petitioner on January 2003 came to know that the electric meter installed in the petitioner's premises was faulty. Petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the first opposite party on 22..2..2003. The petitioner again complained about the fault with meter on 20..8..2003 to the 1st opposite party. Since there was no response the petitioner again complained in writing to the opposite party. Later on 12..5..2004 the petitioner reminded once more. The petitioner received an additional bill for an amount of Rs. 8888/- requesting the petitioner to remit the amount on or before 25..11..2006. The said bill was issued by the opposite party by taking the average consumption of 9/03, 11/05 and 1/06 ie. after the -2- instalation of a new electric meter. According to the petitioner the said period is the most highest consumption period because of the marriage of petitioner's son and daughter. Petitioners states that since the meter was faulty, petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as demanded . According to the petitioner the act of the opposite party in issuing bills for such exorbitant amount without replacing the faulty meter is clear deficiency in service so, the petitioner prays for a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay the additional bill amount of Rs. 8888/-. Petitioner claims an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and costs of proceedings. The opposite party entered appearance and filed joint version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the Regional Audit Officer, Kottayam inspected the electrical Section, Karukachal and During 12/2005 it was found that the meter of the petitioner was faulty from 1/03 to 5/05 the opposite party replaced the meter of the petitioner on 19..5..2005. According to the opposite party bills were issued by taking the average monthly consumption for a period from 9/05 to 11/05 after instalaltion of a new meter. The opposite party contented that the amount demanded is legally entitled to the opposite party and as per clause 24 (v) of the Kerala Electricity supply code 2005 if the licensee establish that it was under charged licensee may recover the amount from the consumer by issuing additional bills. So, according to the opposite party that there is no deficiency of service so the petition is to be dismissed with their costs. Points for determination are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs. -3- Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and opposite party, Ext. A1 to A9 documents on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced additional bill issued on 20..10..2006 for an amount of Rs. 8888/- the said document is marked as Ext. A2. From Ext. A2 it can be seen that the said bill is issued as a short assessment bill for a period from 1/03 to 5/05 due to the finding that the meter is faulty for said period. As per section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is or is not correct. The matter shall be decided by an electrical inspector. Here the opposite party has no case that the fact of fault with the meter was detected by an electrical inspector. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Nirmal Metal Industries Vs. KSEB reported in2006 (3) KLT 465 stated that if the board wants to raise a bill on the plea that it is a defective meter, it is for the board to take the meter from the premises of the consumer and raise a bill inaccordance with the section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910. Here the opposite party has no case that meter was tested by the opposite party, as provided under section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910. Further more we are of the opinion that if the meter is found to be defective there is a duty cast on the board to install a correct meter and get the defective meter tested by the electrical inspector. So, we are of the opinion that issuance of Ext. A2 bill without finding of the defective meter by the Electrical Inspector. is not according to law or rules prevailing. Hence it is liable to be cancelled and the issuance of a bill, without proof of faulty meter is clear deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties. So point No. 1 is found accordingly. -4- Point No. 2. In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs sought for. In the result the bill, for an amount of Rs. 8888/- dtd: 20..10..2006, is cancelled. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and suffering no compensation is ordered. Considering facts and circumstances of the case no cost is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant,corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 5th day of June, 2008.
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
