IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

             KOLLAM

                                                C.C.No. 03/2023

                                                                                                 PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER 

                      ORDER DATED:   18.05.2024

BETWEEN

Ahnas M., 51 years,

S/o Late Sri.Muhammed Iqbal,

Residing at Sherin Gardens,

Uliyacovil P.O., Kollam 691019.                         :           Complainant

(By Adv.K.G.Baiju)

AND

1.      Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Section, Kadappakkada P.O.,

Kollam 691008.

2.      Assistant Executive Engineer,

Electrical Sub Division(Contonment),

Kollam, HPO, Kollam 691001.

3.       Deputy Chief Engineer,

Electrical Circle, KSEB, HPO,

Kollam 691001.:Opposite parties

ORDER

S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT

1. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows; The complainant availed electric connection with consumer No. 1145590014619 for his new residence in 2019 under the domestic tariff, with a connected load of 72640 W. Additionally, a solar power unit with a capacity of 20 KW was installed at his residence, supported by a NET Meter effective from 20.11.2019 onwards. The power generation from the solar power unit was estimated to be around 60 units per day. The NET Meter, installed by the 1^st opposite party, was designed to record both the import and export of electric energy at the complainant's premises. This NET Meter can monitor the import of energy from the KSEB grid and export excess power generated from the solar power unit. Since the solar power generation was expected to be sufficient to meet daily power needs, the complainant anticipated that he would not need to import electricity from the grid and could instead export excess units. It was the sole object behind installation of solar power unit by investing lakhs of money. He expended an approximate sum of ₹15,00,000/- on this account. After the installation of the solar power unit, the complainant was directed to pay fixed charges at the rate of ₹150/- per month, which he remitted accordingly from 11/2019 to 11/2020 based on the bills issued from time to time. However, the complainant did not receive any bills for the period from 12/2020 to 05/2022. Despite his repeated requests and demands, the complainant was informed that he was entitled to an approximate refund of ₹50,000/- from the KSEB for the excess solar power generated and exported. The complainant was satisfied with this explanation given by the 1^st opposite party and was expecting the payment from the KSEB as discussed.
2. Subsequently, the complainant received a letter dated 08.06.2022 from the 1^st opposite party stating that there was a technical error in processing his bills and that a short assessment bill for the period from 20.11.2019 to 11/2020 and the non-billed period from 12/2020 to 05/2022 would be prepared soon. Additionally, he was issued a bill dated 10.06.2022 for June 2022, claiming ₹9,028/- from the complainant. The complainant was requested to pay this bill immediately, and the opposite party apologized for the inconvenience caused. Accordingly, the complainant remitted the bill under the impression that any errors mentioned in their letter dated 08.06.2022 would be rectified to his satisfaction. However, events took a turn for the worse. On 14.06.2022, the complainant received a short assessment bill for the period from 11/2019 to 05/2022, including the non-billed period from 12/2020 to 05/2022, claiming an exorbitant sum of ₹3,65,877/-. The complainant was instructed to remit this amount by 14.07.2022, failing which his power connection would be disconnected.
3. That the said bill was manually prepared and silent about the details of power consumption or NET meter readings. The figures were based on mere surmises and conjectures of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant requested a detailed statement of account relating to power consumption, solar power generation, and the export of electricity from KSEB. As per the statements given by KSEB based on NET meter readings as of 05/2022, the import reading was 2068 units and the export reading was 2473 units. Power consumption based on the import from the KSEB grid and export based on excess power generation from the solar power unit are approximately the same, which prima facie negates the possibility of excessive power consumption by the complainant. The bill dated 14.06.2022 is not based on actual consumption of electricity but rather on assumptions and surmises, with the intent to extort money from the complainant. This constitutes a deficiency in service against the complainant. That the 1^st opposite party, during a routine inspection of the meter and CT connection installed at the complainant's premises on 05.05.2021, found that the import and export readings were interchanged due to an incorrect CT connection. This mistake was committed by the 1^st opposite party and his technicians. The next day, on 06.05.2021, the 1^st opposite party visited the premises again, prepared a scene mahazar, and rectified the faulty connections. Technicians from his controlling office subsequently visited the premises on 22.06.2021 and confirmed that the CT connection polarity was wrongly connected to the meter terminals by the 1^st opposite party.
4. That due to the incorrect cable connection, the CT meter failed to record the consumption of electricity accurately. Since there was no recorded meter reading, it was impossible to estimate electricity consumption or prepare the bill correctly. Therefore, the bill dated 14.06.2022 and the attached statement are not genuine and should be set aside. The 1^st opposite party noted the wrong CT connection on 05.05.2021 but did not take any action for the next 13 months. After this long delay, he issued an excessive bill for ₹3,65,877/- to the complainant. The bills are self-explanatory regarding the nature of consumption by the complainant. That all these facts clearly show a deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties against the complainant. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed complaint No. 49/2020 before the CGRF, Kottarakkara, seeking reliefs against the opposite parties. However, the proceedings resorted to by the CGRF were unknown to law and practice, and the interest of the complainant was sidelined before the said forum. Seeking justice before the said forum became meaningless, and the complainant lost all faith in them. Having no other recourse, the complainant sought permission to withdraw the complaint without prejudice to resort to other remedies against the opposite parties, which was allowed by the Forum. Hence, this complaint is now before this Commission.
5. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Commission but failed to file their version. Hence, they remained ex parte. During the course of the proceedings, there was a posting for settlement of the case between the parties. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he had sent a draft settlement to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties never responded and simply dragged on the matter. Consequently, the complaint proceeded to the evidence stage. The complainant was examined as PW1, and Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked. Since the opposite parties were absent and as there was no representation from their side, ‘No cross-examination’ was recorded. The counsel for the complainant was heard, and the opposite parties’ part were taken as heard.
6. The issues that would arise for consideration are;

1. Whether the bill amounting to ₹3,65,877 issued on 14.06.2022 is valid given the discrepancies in meter readings and the admitted technical errors in billing.
2. Whether the act of the  opposite parties constituted a deficiency in service, including the failure to issue timely bills, rectify technical errors promptly, and provide clear and detailed billing statements.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the inconvenience and financial stress caused by the prolonged billing issues and the issuance of an exorbitant bill based on erroneous assumptions.
4. Compensation and costs.

7. Points (i) to (iv): To avoid repetition of discussions, all the points are considered together. The complainant, who availed of electric connection with consumer No. 1145590014619 for his new residence in 2019 under the domestic tariff with a connected load of 72.64 kW, also installed a 20 KW solar power unit supported by a NET Meter. The NET Meter, installed by the 1^st opposite party, recorded both the import and export of electric energy. The solar unit was expected to generate around 60 units per day, sufficient to meet the complainant's daily power needs and allow for the export of excess power. From November 2019 to November 2020, the complainant paid fixed charges as billed. However, from December 2020 to May 2022, no bills were issued. Despite repeated requests, the complainant was informed that he was due a refund of approximately ₹50,000 for excess power generated.
8. On June 8, 2022, the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant of a technical error in bill processing and stated that a short assessment bill would be prepared. Shortly after, on June 10, 2022, the complainant received a bill for ₹9,028, which he paid. However, on June 14, 2022, the complainant received a short assessment bill for ₹3,65,877, covering November 2019 to May 2022. This bill lacked detailed consumption or NET meter readings and was based on assumptions and surmises. The 1^st opposite party, during his routine inspection of the meter and CT connection installed in the premises of the complainant on May 5, 2021, found that an incorrect CT connection caused the import and export readings to be interchanged, which was only rectified on June 6, 2021. This error led to inaccurate electricity consumption records, making the bill of ₹3,65,877 unjustifiable. The complainant pleads that technician from the controlling office visited the premises and confirmed that the CT connection polarity was wrongly connected to the meter terminals by the 1^st opposite party.
9. The important aspect to be noted is that the primary objective behind the installation of the solar power unit, for which the complainant invested approximately ₹15,00,000/-, was to achieve energy self-sufficiency and potentially earn revenue through the export of surplus power.
10. Exhibit P1, a letter dated June 8, 2022, issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant, reads as follows:
11.  

We are enclosing bill for 6/2022 for payment. Inconvenience caused in this regard is regretted…’

11. Furthermore, the complainant has pleaded that the amount demanded as per Ext P2 dated June 10, 2022, i.e., ₹9,028, has been remitted by the complainant, and the opposite party apologized for the inconvenience caused to the complainant.
12. The complainant has approached this Commission challenging the bill dated June 14, 2022, which has been marked as Ext. P4 series. As per the same, the complainant has been issued a handwritten bill for ₹3,65,877, demanding remittance on or before July 14, 2022. On verification of the same it is found that Ext. P4 bill for ₹3,65,877 is a manually prepared one and the details with regard to previous meter reading date, previous status, previous bill amount, amount remitted, present reading, consumption, average consumption etc. are left unfilled. Such a situation gives credence to the complainant's claim that this bill for such an exorbitant amount has been issued based on mere surmises and conjectures by the opposite parties.
13. The complainant has pleaded that, upon receipt of the said bill and being aggrieved by the same, the complainant approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, KSEB Ltd., Southern Region, Kottarakkara. Due to perceived deficiencies in service and inaccurate billing, the complainant filed Complaint No. 49/2020 before the CGRF, Kottarakkara. Dissatisfied with the proceedings and losing faith in the forum, the complainant withdrew the complaint to seek other remedies, leading to the current complaint before this Commission, the order has been produced and marked as Ext P7. The contentions in the version of the opposite parties before the CGRF, as discussed in Ext.P7, are as follows:
    •  

14. At this juncture, the matter to be considered is to determine which party is responsible for the error. It is undisputed that the incorrectly connected CT (Current Transformer) was not the fault of the complainant but of the 1^st opposite party. Consequently, due to the deficient and irresponsible actions of the opposite parties, the complainant should not be made to suffer. The opposite parties have not presented any evidence to counter the allegations. In Ext P7, it could be seen that the opposite parties have taken a contention that, ‘according to Regulation 134(1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, if any mistake is detected in the consumer’s bill, the licensee is entitled to recover the amount undercharged from the consumer by issuing a bill’. However, this regulation must be applied fairly and accurately, reflecting actual consumption and not estimates or assumptions as made in the case before hand.
15. Based on the facts presented and the failure of the opposite parties to appear and defend the case, the Commission finds merit in the complainant's case. The discrepancies in billing, the admitted technical errors, and the lack of timely and accurate billing constitute a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant has to be compensated. Hence, we find that the complainant is justified in seeking redress and is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

17. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The Exhibit P4 bill dated 14-06-2022, for ₹3,65,877/- is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to reassess the consumption of electricity based on future export-import meter readings and issue a fresh bill to the complainant. Furthermore, the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of ₹25,000/- towards compensation and ₹10,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which execution proceedings may be initiated.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 18^th  day of  May 2024.

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

Forwarded/by Order        

                 Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1                 :Ahnas

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1              : Letter dated 08.06.2022 issued by the 1^st opposite party

Ext.P2             : Bill dated 10.0.2022 issued by the 1^st opposite party

Ext.P3             : Letter dated 14.06.2022 issued by the 1^st opposite party

Ext.P4 series    : Bill dated 14.06.2022 issued by the 1^st opposite party

Ext.P5             : Clarification statements issued by the 1^st opposite party

Ext.P6             : Notice dated 05.01.2023 issued by the 1^st opposite party

Ext.P7             : Copy of order dated 26.12.2022 of CGRF, KSEB, Kottarakkara

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite parties:-Nil                                                                      

Sd/-

 PRESIDENT