By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The case of the complainant is as follows:
1. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and holding consumer No1165658009540. The electricity connection was actually held by his mother and subsequent to her death the complainant continued to hold the same connection. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party issued a bill dated 13/03/2021 demanding to pay Rs. 1939/- as arrears of past consumption. According to the complainant the arrear bill was issued under the pretext that meter was faulty and so the opposite party replaced with new one. The complainant contented that he or his family members had no knowledge about the replacement of meter. As per the arrear bill the opposite party demanded to pay Rs.1939/- on or before 13/04/2021. During the period of impugned bill i.e. dated between 31/01/2019 to 13/03/2021 the complainant did not receive any information regarding the arrears of payment from the opposite party. It is contended by the complainant that bill was issued without inspection and reading of meter by the opposite party. The opposite party threatened that if the payment was not made along with bill dated 23/03/2021 there would be disconnection of electricity power. According to the complainant the amount demanded by the opposite party was huge one and not capable of making payment as demanded by the opposite party. It is also stated that the complainant properly remitted the amount on demand of every bills issued by the opposite party. The demand of excess amount in the form of arrears by the opposite party caused sufferings of mental agony and hardship to the complainant. So the complainant approached before this Commission to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the threatening and acts of the opposite party. The complainant also prayed to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1939/- . The complainant also prayed to get another direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 2500/- as the cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed version.
3. In the version it is contended by the opposite party that the complaint is not maintainable either in law and on facts. It is also contended in the version that the complainant did not take any steps to transfer the connection in his favour after the death of his mother. The replacement of defective meter was done not at the instance of the complainant but after the inspection conducted by the opposite party as the meter was not properly reading the actual consumption of the electricity. It was alleged that the complainant consumed excessive quantity of electricity for a long period and same was not recorded in the meter due to its defect. According to the opposite party after the replacement new meter properly recorded actual consumption of electricity. According to the opposite party the demand for payment of arrears of Rs.1939/- was in accordance with due procedure. The opposite party did not threaten the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party legally demanded for payment of arrears bill as the complainant was liable to pay the charges of consumed electricity. The opposite party added that the issuance of bill was made only after proper inspection and reading of meter. So the complainant did not suffer mental agony or hardship as alleged in the complaint. It was stated in the version that the arrear bill was issued on the basis of inspection conducted on 31/01/2019 and also after preparation of audit report as ROA/AAO/GEN/Inspn/MK PMB/143. Inspection was conducted due to a suspicion raised over the functioning of meter and which resulted in the finding of its meter found defective. Subsequently a short assessment bill was issued for a period in which the meter was found defective. According to the opposite party above findings were informed to the complainant as the bill issued by the complainant itself explained nature of arrear. As per the provision of Kerala Electricity Supply Code Regulation 125, the short assessment bill was prepared after calculating the average consumption of three bills issued after replacement of faulty meter. The average rate of those three bills is assessed as the rate of the last two bills immediately before the replacement of faulty meter. By adopting above method as stated in the statute the opposite party issued direction to pay Rs. 1939/- as electricity charge consumed by the complainant during the time of malfunctioning of the meter. So the complainant was liable to remit arrears as claimed by the opposite party.
4. It was explained in the version that the faulty meter was replaced on 21/07/2017. Before replacement the average consumption of electricity was 100 units in the period of 04/03/2017, 05/05/2017 and 05/07/2017. But after replacement the average reading to meter reached to 302 units per bill issued on 04/11/2017, 07/01/2018 and 16/03/2018. So the opposite party directed the complainant to pay the arrears on 13/03/2021 along with regular bill. The opposite party also issued a separate bill demanding arrears. The issued bill also indicated the disconnection date as on 13/04/2021. The procedure adopted by the opposite party cannot be treated as a threatening behaviour towards the complainant. It is stated in the version that opposite party did not commit any kind of dereliction of duty or illegal act against the complainant. The complainant has no right to get an order as prayed in the complaint. The complainant is liable to pay Rs.1939/- along with interest as per the regulation 125 (1), (2) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014. The opposite party also stated in the version that any further action was not taken against the complainant by complying the order made by this Commission in IA No.148/2021 dated 09/04/2021. According to the opposite party the complaint was filed by suppressing material facts and misusing legal procedure. The action of the complainant has caused heavy loss to the opposite party and complainant is liable to compensate the same. It is also challenged in the version that complainant was not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party claimed Rs. 25,000/- as compensatory cost from the complainant and also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant and the opposite party filed affidavits and produced documents. The documents produced by the complainant marked as Ext A1 to A8. Ext.A1 document is the original demand and disconnection notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A2 document is the copy of death certificate of the mother of the complainant issued by Registrar of Birth and Death, Puzhakattiri Grama Panchayat dated 03/11/2020. Ext.A3 document is the copy of application made under Right to Information Act, 2005 by the complainant submitted before the office of the opposite party. Ext.A4 document is the reply of Public Information Officer from the office of the opposite party. Ext.A5 document is the copy of application dated 06/04/2022 made under Right to Information Act submitted before the Public Information Officer, in the office of the opposite party. Ext.A6 document is the copy of bill dated 13/03/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A7 document is the copy of receipt dated 23/03/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A8 document is the copy of receipt dated 24/03/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The opposite party did not produce any documents before the Commission.
6. Heard both sides. Perused affidavits and documents. The points arisen for the consideration of the Commission are:-
(1) Whether there was commission of deficiency in service by the opposite party towards the complainant.
(2) If yes, then relief and cost.
7. Point No. (1) and (2).
The complainant contended that he is a consumer of the opposite party and on 13/03/2021 he received an arrear bill of Rs.1939/- from the opposite party and same was marked as A6 document. The opposite party also issued another demand and disconnection notice to the complainant and same was also produced before the Commission and marked as Ext.A1 document. According to the complainant he was not liable to pay the amount demanded by Ext.A1 and A6 document as he did not consumed as much electricity as claimed by the opposite party and assessment was made without conducting proper reading of the meter. But in the version opposite party stated that the issuance of Ext.A1 and A6 documents were made after following due procedure prescribed by the statute and the complainant was liable to remit the arrear amount. As per the contention of the opposite party there was consumption of large quantity of electricity by the complainant for a long period and actual consumption did not record in the meter due to its defect. According to the opposite party short assessment bill was issued to the complainant after conducting inspection on 31/01/2019 and preparation of audit report as RAO/AAO/GEN/Inspn/ MKPMB/143 for the period in which meter was found defective. It is also stated by the opposite party that faulty meter was replaced with new one on 21/07/2017. The case put forward by the opposite party is that the short assessment bill was prepared on the basis of calculation of the average consumption seen in the three bills issued by the opposite party after the replacement of faulty meter and then the average unit so assessed would be taken as each quantity of last two bills immediately before the replacement. It is also contended by the opposite party that the average consumption of the complainant was 100 units for every bill before the replacement of meter. But after the replacement the consumption was assessed as 302 units for every bill as used by the complainant before the replacement. Even though the opposite party stated that meter was replaced on 21/07/2017. But the complainant did not agree with the story of replacement. According to the complainant the story of replacement was false. He also contended that he did not notice any fault with the functioning of meter and the opposite party did not inform about the replacement. In this situation the Commission finds that the contention of replacement of meter was unbelievable as the opposite party failed to bring out sufficient evidence to prove the incident of replacement. If replacement of meter was occurred as claimed by the opposite party, definitely there should have been some documentary evidence in connection with installation of new meter. Moreover the opposite party also failed to bring identifying description of the replaced meter before the Commission. So at this juncture, the contention made by the opposite party that reading was done after the replacement and thereafter arrear amount was calculated becomes untrustworthy and unacceptable. Moreover the opposite party did not produce the audit report prepared on 31/01/2019 before this Commission.
8. The explanation given by the complainant regarding the change of ownership of the electricity connection is more convincing as the opposite party continuously providing electricity to the complainant after collecting sufficient fare. So the complainant is a competent person to raise the issue before the Commission. According to the opposite party he replaced the alleged faulty meter on 21/07/2017 and the audit report was prepared on 31/01/2019. It is also find that the opposite party issued Ext.A6 document only on 13/03/2021 and the date of issuance cannot be seen on Ext.A1 document. So it can be find that the entire actions taken by the opposite party against the complainant was not in a convincing manner and seen as in a perfunctory nature. Moreover the complainant claimed that he was used to remit all the bills properly and he did not receive any information regarding arrears of bill between 31/01/2019 and 13/03/2021. So the Commission finds that there was negligent act on the part of the opposite party in issuing Ext.A1 and A6 documents. There was no interruption to the consumption of the electricity of the complainant so far. The allegation of threat by the opposite party was not proved by the complainant by adducing cogent evidence. So the complaint is partly allowed as follows:
- The issuance of Ext.A1 and A6 documents are cancelled and so the opposite party has no right to collect the amount of Rs.1939/- from the complainant as arrears of bill and opposite party shall issue an non liability certificate to that effect to the complainant.
- The interim order issued in IA No. 148/2021 stands cancelled.
- No compensation is ordered and parties are directed to bear the cost of the proceedings by themselves.
The opposite Party is directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dated this 29th day of November, 2022.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A8
Ext.A1 : Document is the original demand and disconnection notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A2 : Document is the copy of death certificate of the mother of the complainant issued by Registrar of Birth and Death, Puzhakattiri
Grama Panchayat dated 03/11/2020.
Ext.A3: Document is the copy of application made under Right to Information Act 2005 by the complainant submitted before the office
of the opposite party.
Ext.A4 : Document is the reply of Public Information Officer in the office of the Opposite party.
Ext.A5 : Document is the copy of application dated 06/04/2022 made under Right to Information Act submitted before the Public
Information Officer, in the Office of the opposite party.
Ext.A6: Document is the copy of bill dated 13/03/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. A7: Document is the copy of receipt dated 23/03/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A8 : Document is the copy of receipt dated 24/03/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
