D.o.F:23/11/09

D.o.O:21/5/2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.256/09

                        Dated this, the 21st    day of May 2010.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                   :MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI                         : MEMBER    

Kumaran,S/o Appakunhi,

R/at  Gandhigudde,Kumbadage,           : Complainant

Kasaragod

(in person)

Asst.Engineer,

Electrical Section,Mulleria.Po,

Kasaragod                                             : Opposite party

(Adv.P.Raghavan,Kasaragod)

                                                ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ        : PRESIDENT

 Complaint in brief is as follows:

   Complainant is a consumer coming under the jurisdiction of opposite party.  His consumer No. is R.6691008156.  He is paying the electricity bills regularly without any default.  The meter was faulty on 2 occasions and the lineman told him that it is rectified.  He paid 339 rupees on 22/10/09 towards the electricity charges of previous bi- monthly consumption.  Again on 3/11/09 he was served with another bill for 1180 rupees.  On enquiry made  about the said bill ,it was told that  the bill is pending  due to opposite party and if it is not paid his electricity connection will be  disconnected.  Though the complainant asked about the details of the bill the opposite party did not give him a prompt reply.  Therefore, exhausting  all the ways and  fearing disconnection of electricity he paid 1180 rupees on 18/11/09.  Therefore the complaint praying for an order of refund of 1180 rupees with a compensation o 5000 rupees and cost of the proceedings.

2.   According to opposite party, the meter in the premises of the complainant was faulty from 4/2007 onwards.  The meter was changed in Dec.2007.  The current charge for actual consumption could not be collected from the complainant during the period the meter was faulty.  The consumption was re –assessed on the basis of the average consumption  in the succeeding 6 months after replacement of the meter as per Sec.42(3) of the terms and  conditions of supply 2005.  As per the re-assessment the total amount the  consumer has to be paid is 2388/- rupees.  The consumer paid 1208 rupees during the faulty period.  The balance amount is 1180 rupees.  For this amount opposite party has issued the re-assessment bill and the same has been remitted by the complainant.  There is no illegality in issuing the bill.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.  Complainant examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 marked.  Heard both sides.

4.  The issues to be settled in this complaint are

        1.whether the opposite party is justified in issuing the bill impugned.

        2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount. 

5.         As per regulation 33 clause 2 of the Conditions of supply the meter ought to be replaced with one month.  In this case even according to the opposite party the meter was faulty from 4/07 and it was replaced with a defect free one only in Dec.2007. This is in violation of regulation 33 clause 2 of the Conditions of supply.  The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.57/10 dated 8/3/2010 KSEB vs. P.T.Thomas has taken a similar view.

6.    Further there are no provisions either in the KSEB Terms & Conditions of Supply 2005 or in the Electricity Act 2003 to raise such a demand.

7.    Sec.55 of the Electricity Act 2003 says that No licensee shall supply electricity, after expiry of two years from the appointed date, except through installation of a correct meter in accordance with the regulations made in that behalf.

8.         So as per this Section the KSEB should have fixed a correct meter immediately on noting the defects.  Here the supply of electricity to the complainant was through a faulty meter and there after claimed additional charges taking the succeeding meter readings after replacing the faulty meter.  That is not legally permissible because it was  the duty of the  opposite party  to maintain a good running meter and replace a faulty meter immediately on noting the defects.

9.         Secondly Sec.42 (3) of the KSEB Terms & Conditions of Supply 2005 nowhere permits the Opposite parties to make an additional demand after taking the average consumption of either proceeding or succeeding 6 months after the replacement of the faulty meter.

10.       Regulation 42 (3) reads as follows.

“The consumer may report any complaint regarding meter to the concerned Electrification Section.  The inspection of the meter will be carried out using the standard reference meter (Single Phase/Three Phase) available in the Section office which is tested, calibrated and sealed by the Electrical Inspectorate.  If meter is found faulty such meters shall be replaced immediately at the expense of the Board.  If the existing meter after having found faulty is replaced with a new one, the consumption recorded during the period in which the meter was faulty shall be reassessed based on the average consumption for the previous six months prior to replacement of meter. If the average consumption for the previous six months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason, the consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding six months after replacement of meter and excess claimed if any, shall be adjusted in the future current charge bills.” 

11.       This regulation only permits the KSE Board to adjust the excess amount claimed (collected) from the consumer in the future current charge bills if the amount collected during the period in which the meter was faulty  was more than the actual dues based on the average consumption of succeeding months or preceding months after the replacement of meter.  It nowhere says that the excess consumed/or unassessed if any shall be billed additionally if the consumption after the replacement  of the meter is  higher than that of the average consumption calculated or assumed during the period in which the meter was faulty.  Hence the bill is unsustainable and the complainant is entitled for the refund of the bill  amount paid . 

            In the result complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund 1180/- rupees collected from the complainant  together with a cost of 1000/-rupees.  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Failing which opposite party shall be further liable to pay interest @12%  for 1180/-rupees from the date of complaint till payment.

Sd/                                           Sd/                                                        Sd/

MEMBER                            MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

Ext.A1-3/11/09- demand notice of Rs.1180/-

eva                                             /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                Senior Superintendent