D.o.F:27/8/2009

D.o.O:19/10/2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                      CC.NO. 197/09

                   Dated this, the 19^th   day of October  2010

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                       : MEMBER

Lakshmi, W/o Narayanan,

Kundadukkam, Karadukka PO,                ; Complainant

Kasaragod

(Adv.K.P.Narayanan Nair,Kasaragod)

Asst. Engineer,

Electrical Section, Mulleria Po,                 : Opposite party

(Adv.P.Raghavan,Kasaragod)

                                                      ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ       : PRESIDENT

    The case of the complainant bereft of unnecessaries is that opposite party is levying more amount than that is shown in the bills many a times and finally as per bill dt.3/8/09 instead of  ` 160/-  shown  in the bills she was directed to pay  ` 873/- .  The bills are not tally with her actual consumption .  On enquiry  about the anomaly no satisfactory explanation is given to her.  The electricity  meter installed in her premises was faulty that was subsequently replaced.  But during the period when the meter remained faulty  also she was served with the bills which is not in conformity  with her actual usage.

     According to opposite party,  the meter installed in the premises was in working condition.  In the month of April 2009 bill for ` 484/- was issued to the complainant .  In the bill dt.6/4/09 , the previous meter reading was 301 and the meter reading at the billing time was 524 units.  The consumption was 223 units.  The next reading was on 5.6.09. In the bill the previous reading was shown as 524 units.  Since there was a computer inkline just before 524 units the spot biller thought that the previous reading was 1524units.  The reading at the bill period was 707units.  Due to confusion regarding the previous reading whether it is 524 units or 1524 units the spot biller has not taken the total consumption.  Therefore bill for minimum charge ` 85/-  is issued.  The amount has been remitted by the complainant.  The next billing period was in August 2009.  In the bill dated 3/8/09 the closing reading was 878 and the previous reading was shown as 524 units  ie on 13/4/09 was 354 units.  The amount was not collected from the complainant .  That is  pending.  Only that amount is demanded from the complainant.  The total amount due from the complainant  is ` 873/-.  No excessive  amount is demanded from the complainant.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.    Since the working of the meter is in dispute complainant  take steps to sent the meter for testing through Electrical inspector.  Accordingly, a  report is filed by the  electrical inspector Kasaragod based on the test report of  Meter Testing and Standards Laboratory Thiruvananthapuram.  As per the report it is seen that  there is no defect to the meter.

4.   Thereafter complainant filed affidavit in support of her case.  Exts,A1 to A10 and Ext.X1 marked.  On the side of opposite party Exts.B1&B2 marked.  Both sides heard and documents perused.

5.  The grievance of the complainant is that the bills issued are not according to actual consumption.  The Ext.X1 report of Electrical Inspector shows that the meter is working in good condition.  Hence opposite parties are entitled  to collect the electricity charges as per the meter reading.

6.   But on a close scrutiny  of Exts.A1 to A9 electricity bills issued to the complainant it is seen that as alleged by the complainant  bills are issued without considering the actual consumption violating all the norms.  For the sake of convenience the details of the bills is shown in the table below.:

          The above details itself makes the  case of the complainant manifest that she was being charged with excessive amount without  basing on  actual consumption.

   The meter is changed on 30/8/08 formerly alleging that it is not working.  How and on what ground opposite party came to the  conclusion  that the said meter is faulty is not clear from the records.

 7.    As per Ext.A1 ,on 1/2/08 the recordings is 1833 and the consumption is 251 units.  As per Ext.A2 bill dtd 4/6/08 the reading is 2223 units ie in between 2/08 to 6/08 (4 months).  There would be a reading on 4/08 and the  previous reading on that date would be 2061 units.  But that bill is not produced before us.  So the consumption would have been 2061-1833 = 228 units during the period 2/08 to 4/08.  On 4/6/08 the reading is 2223 units and the consumption is 162 units.  The above readings will not reflect any fault in the meter, that was later on confirmed by Ext.X1 report .  Again the next reading is taken on 8/6/08 that is just after 4 days from the previous reading on 4/6/08.  What prompted opposite party to take reading on that day is not clear.  On that day the meter reader has noted the actual reading initially as 2233.  But it is seen that there is  an over writing on the opening reading and it is corrected as 2223.  Thereafter the meter reader himself declared the meter as faulty and taken an average of 180 units for  4 days- For which Ext.A6 bill  for ` 316/- is issued and collected from the complainant.

8.    Similarly in Ext.A4 bill dtd 6/10/08 after changing the meter on 30/8/08 the opening reading  is shown as 164 units and previous reading 1.  But instead of issuing bill for 163 units the bill is issued for 320 units taking it as average and  ` 908/-  is seen claimed. 

9.   How and on what basis opposite party issued Exts.A4 to A6 bill  is not explained.  Even if  explained the said method of issuing bills is alien to the terms and conditions of Electricity Supply 2005 and the Code of Electric Supply.  No doubt it amounts to deficiency in service.

 10.   The counsel for complainant submitted that the opposite party disconnected her electric connection for non payment of  Ext.A8 bill dtd 3/8/09.  There  also the bill amount shown is 160/- but in which ` 873/- is claimed that is said to be the electricity charges.  To which the explanation of opposite party is that the meter reader was confused when he has taken the meter reading for the bill 6/09 and instead of calculating the bill amount for actual consumption ie 707 -524 units seeing a computer  ink line to the previous meter reading he noted the meter reading as 1524 and issued a bill for minimum consumption 50 units and in the subsequent bill they reckoned the entire consumption as 354 units(878-524) and directed the complainant to  remit that amount instead of  160/- shown in the bill.  But the said calculations are not seen entered in Ext.A8 bill. In Ext.A8  also the status of the meter is recorded by the meter reader as M/F(Meter faulty) and taking the consumption as 100 units bill for ` 160/- is served.  But when the complainant approached to pay the amount she was directed to remit ` 873/- .  The tariff for calculating the said amount is nowhere mentioned.  Further the amount she paid as per the bill for 6/09 ie ` 85/- taking  the consumption as 50 units The said units and payment made is also not considered in the said claim. 

11.    Therefore the case of the complainant that she has been taxed with unjust amounts without any basis is well founded.  The opposite party is entitled to collect the electricity charges only basing on the actual meter readings reflected in the meter when the meter is in good working condition.  The issuance of bills without any basis and details would definitely create suspicion in the minds of a consumer who has every right to know for what he is paying for.

12.   The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and opposite party is therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the loss hardships and mental agony she suffered.  During enquiry it is submitted that the electricity connection was disconnected for few days for nonpayment of the charges as claimed in the bill dtd. 5/8/09.  Though opposite party has every right to disconnect an electricity connection for nonpayment of electricity charges, in this case the complainant cannot be accused  for the non payment of the amount which is claimed without  any basis and explanation.

    The opposite party is therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the loss hardships and mental agony caused to the complainant.

     Hence the complaint is allowed, the impugned bill for ` 873/- is cancelled and opposite party is directed to pay ` 2000/- as compensation to the complainant together with cost of  ` 2000/-.  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Failing which opposite party shall  further liable to pay interest @12%  for  ` 2000/- from the date of complaint till payment.

Sd/                                                                                          Sd/

MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT

Exts.A1 to A10- electricity bills

B1- 24/9/09-Details of meter reading

B2-6/4/09- copy of electricity bill

X1-22/3/10-test report issued by Electrical Inspector,Kasaragod

Sd/                                    Sd/

MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT

eva

/Forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT