Assistant Executive Engineer and Another The Secretary,K.S.E.B.,Thiruvananthapuram
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARI 2. RAVI SUSHA
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT This complaint filed by the complainant seeking to issue a direction to the opp.parties to repay the amount collected from the complainant by way of additional bills and for compensation. The averments in the complaint as follows: The complainants are joint owners of Valiyakulangara Devi temple and are the consumers of the opp.parties. They have taken Electricity Connection with consumer Nos. 1291,11905 and 1256. Consumer No.1256, a three phase electric connection under tariff 6A is taken and used jointly by the 2nd complainant for the general use of the Temple and other 2 meters are used by them separately. On 7.2.2003 the consumption of electricity of the three phase electric connection with the consumer number 1256 is assessed by the opp.parties and the same was replaced. On 10.10.2003 the opp.parties issued an additionAL bill [back assessment bill] for an amount of Rs.7,512/- for a period of six months prior to the date of replacement of the meter calculated on the basis of average consumption of subsequent 8 months of the replacement of the meter. The issuance of the bill is illegal as the bill was issued on 10.10.2003 for the period prior to 7.2.2003. ie. the bill relates to the periods prior to eight to thirteen months from the date of issue, while the maximum period allowed as per the law is six months. The additional bill was issued by the opp.party for the unused electrical energy. The additional bill is issued without getting the same tested by the concerned Electrical Inspector. The bills was issued without showing the details and hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed a joint version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The excess bills served to the complainants is in order and prepared on the basis of tariffs rules prevailing in the KSEB. The bill was prepared only for six months based on the average consumption after the replacement of the energy meter . The metre bearing consumer No.1256 was faulty for the period from 7/2002 to 2/2003. There was an under billing happened in this case as the energfy meter was faulty for the period from 7/2002 to 2/2003. The opp.parties are entitled to rectify the mistake and the excess bill was issued by way of rectification of its revenue loss. The metre was declared faulty by the Boards competent officials and the reading shows a static figure during the faulty period. If the consumers have any dispute regarding the accuracy of the meter it is the option of the consumer to request for testing of the meter after remitting the prescribed fee. This has been laid down in the clause 35 of the conditions of supply of Electrical Energy 1990. The excess bill was issued as per rules . No deficiency of service or negligence has arised from the part of the Boards. Hence the opp.party prays for dismissal of the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: [i] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties [ii] Relies and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Exts. P1 and P2 marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Exts. D1 is marked. Points 1 and 2 The main contention of the complaints is that the additional bill issued is illegal as the same was issued without referring the issue to the Electrical Inspector concerned and without getting the meter alleged to be faulty inspected by the Electrical Inspector. It is further argued that the opp.parties themselves have removed the meters from the premises of the complainant on the assumption that the meters were faulty and a new meter was issued the additional bill which is against the provisions of the Electricity Act. The contention of the opp.parties is that the 3 meter installed at the premises of the complainant were not working but were static for the period from 7/2002 to 2/2003 and therefore, the same were replaced with new meters, and the reading immediately prior 6 months could not be taken the meters where static during the period and . average reading for 6 months subsequent to the installation of the new meters was taken and the additional bill prepared accordingly. As a matter of fact no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to why the existing meters were replaced with new meters without getting the same tested by the Electrical Inspector concerned. It is also to be noted that no notice is also issued to the complainant in this regard. Even assuming that the office have every right to remove the meters installed in the premises of the complainant for the purpose of checking the same they have no right replace the same without getting them checked by the Electrical Inspector and getting the same declared as faulty by the Electrical Inspector. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the dispute whether a meter is correct or faulty has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector and in support of his contention he has relied on the decision of the Apex court reported in AIR 1988 SC 71. There is no dispute that the present bills was issued without getting the meters checked and getting the opinion of the Electrical Inspector. It is worth pointing out in this context that under section 26 of Electricity Act the Electrical Inspector is to estimate the amount of Electrical Energy supplied to the consumers during the period when the meter is alleged to be faulty or not working. In this case the addition bill is issued solely on the basis of the assessment made by the opp.parties themselves. The learned counsel of the opp.parties would argue that the additional bill is prepared as per clause 31 [c]of the conditions of the Supply of Electrical Energy and the opp.parties have every right to rectify the mistake and demand proper charges from the consumer when there is under billing . It is true that they have every right for the same Rule 31 [c] itself makes it mandatory that every dispute regarding correctness of the meter shall be decided by the Electrical Inspector when there is dispute. From the complaint it is obvious that there is dispute. It has been stated in 31 [c] that any difference any dispute arises as to correctness of the meter, the matter shall be decided upon by the Electrical Inspector to Govt. upon application of either of the consumer or of the Board. Without complying with the provisions of Electricity Act and laws relating to Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy, the opp. Parties are not justified in preparing the additional bill. In Valsa George V/s. KSEB [1988[1]KLT 175 the Honble High Court has held that unless the demand is based on the determination by the Inspector of the consumption of the energy in accordance with S. 26 [6], the same cannot be enforced in law. In M.P.E.B and others, V/s. Smt. Basantibai [AIR 1988 SC 71]the Apex court also held that the dispute whether metre in question is correct one or faulty is to be decided by the Electrical Inspector. It is further held therein that if the Electrical Inspector consumed to finding that the meter is faulty and due to some which is not registered actual consumption of the Electrical Energy then Electrical Inspector issued a bill amount and bill fixed the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period in exceeding six months. In the light of the decision referred to above we are constrained to hold that Ext.P1 is issued without observing the prescribed procedure and as such the same is illegal and liable to be quashed. In the result the complaint is allowed in part quashing Ext.p1 additional bill. The complaint is also allowed Rs.1,000/- towards costs. The order is to b e complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order Dated this the 25th day of October 2007. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY :Sd/- ADV. RAVI SUSHA ;Sd/- Forwarded/by Order, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. President. List of documents for the complainant P1. Additional bill P2. Letter sent by the complainant List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. N. Mohanan List of documents for the opp.party D1. Assessment calculation details.
