DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of January 2018
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 24/11/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.183/2016)
Narayana Naik.N,
House No.15A, Athira Nagar,
(Kakkanni),
Kallekulangara (PO),
Palakkad 678 009. - Complainant
V/s
Assistant Executive Engineer,
KSEB Olavakkot Electrical Section,
Poochira, Olavakkot,
Palakkad - Opposite party
(Advs.T.Reena & Remika.C)
O R D E R
By Shri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
The complaint in brief is as follows.
The complainant is the native of Karnataka and resides in the aforesaid address since 2008. His house is electrified with KSEBL electric connection with consumer No.1165327011577. According to him he has only limited number of household electrical equipments including electric iron, fridge and TV and has been controlling and minimizing the use of electricity with no heavy wattage item. His average monthly consumption comes to 150 to 165 units which cost Rs.1,300/- to Rs.1,500/-. However, the complainant got a bimonthly electric bill for Rs.13,713/- for the period from 23.07.2016 to 23.09.2016 for the electricity consumption of 1657 units. Complainant further pleads that there are only four members in his family and there were no family functions nor celebrations in his house during the said period and hence there is no reason for increase in electricity consumption. No electric machinery was used in his house or premises. Also wiring and earth systems made in his house building were checked by a qualified licensed technician and found everything good and satisfactory. The energy meter is also tested in a laboratory by the KSEBL officials as per his request and found the meter in good working condition. Complainant also approached KSEBL, Assistant Engineer at Poochira for waiving a huge amount of Rs.13,713/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred and thirteen only) and issuing a fresh bill based on previous three months average consumption; but, the concerned Engineer asked the complainant to pay the bill amount along with meter testing fee of Rs.210/- by way of cost of testing energy meter. According to the complainant, his request for the waiver of the amount failed and he was forced to remit full amount plus Rs.210/- towards meter testing charges. Complainant further pleads that energy meter is owned and operated by the KSEBL and hence, complainant has no role regarding the functioning of the same. Besides, he is not technically qualified and he is unable to read the measurement in the electronic energy meter and complainant may not be penalized for anything happened unusually in the meter reading. According to him, he can only watch the working of the instrument and no incident of enhanced bill occurred in the past with the result that complainant did not take much care and notice in progressing of meter reading. In the light of the above, complainant prays to Hon’ble Forum to arrange to compensate his monetary loss and return the excess amount of Rs.13,713/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred and thirteen only) after deducting charge based on an average amount of bimonthly consumption with admissible interest and meter reading charges of Rs.210/-.
The complaint was admitted and notice was sent to opposite party to enter appearance and file version. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version in which they contends that except those expressly admitted, the rest of the allegation and averments in the complaint are denied. The complainant is a consumer of KSEBL under electrical section, Olavakkot with consumer No. 1165327011577. The complainant is billed in LT 1 (a) (domestic) tariff with a connected load of 1540 watts. According to the opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Hence, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the only remedy available to the complainant is to approach CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM (CGRF) of the opposite party under section 111 (1) of the Electricity Act of 2003 and to the Electricity Ombudsman. The complaint of the complainant is that he received a bimonthly electricity bill for Rs.13,713/- for the period from 23.07.2016 to 23.09.2016 for the consumption of 1657 units of electricity. According to the opposite party, KSEBL is charging electricity charges on the basis of consumption recorded in the meter installed as per the Electricity Act, 2003, Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 etc. Opposite party also contends that complainant got a bill for 1657 units due to faulty meter or due to the complainant having actually consumed 1657 units of electricity and the actions that were taken by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Olavakkode were testing of meter and finding out reasons for the increased consumption. As per Regulation 113 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, a parallel meter was installed at the premises of the complainant consumer along with the existing meter for checking whether the disputed meter shows any deviation from the actual reading. The parallel meter was connected for 4 days along with the original meter and it was found that no anomaly was detected in the original meter which showed the same reading as parallel meter which indicated that the original meter was working properly. Since the complainant was not satisfied with this testing, he remitted the necessary challenge test fee as per Regulation 113 (4) whereby the meter to be tested was removed, a corrected meter was installed and the removed meter was sent to testing laboratory for testing of meter (TMR division, Shornur) where the meter was tested in the presence of the complainant. The testing authorities observed that the tested meter was found ok and the errors were within permissible limits. In order to verify whether the complainant might have used electricity for this extent, the premises of the complainant was physically inspected and it was found that upstair construction work was going on which, might have caused increased consumption and unusually high meter reading in September 2016 as a result of use of electricity for welding, concrete cutting, tiles cutting, water pumping, wiring etc. as contended by the opposite party. Opposite party also contends that there can be some leakage of current inside the premises of the complainant for which the KSEBL is not responsible. The excess reading might have been due to earth leakage inside the premises of the complainant for which KSEBL is not responsible. Opposite party also contends that KSEBL purchases electricity at a higher rate and provides it to the domestic consumers at a cheaper rate. The production cost/purchase price of 1657 units shown in the energy meter of the complainant has already been paid by the KSEBL and hence, the company is authorized to recover the same from the complainant at the rate fixed by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Hence, opposite party contends that the complaint filed is false fabricated and not based on facts and prays to the Hon’b;e Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost.
Complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked form the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 was marked from the part of the opposite party. Complainant also filed additional affidavit. Complainant was cross examined as PW1.
The following issues are framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any negligence, deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party ?
- If so, the relief and remedy available to the complainant?
The issues are briefly stated as follows
The complainant’s house is electrified with consumer No.1165327011577. According to the complainant there are only limited number of household electric equipments and he has no heavy wattage items in his house. His average monthly consumption of electricity comes to 150 to 165 units costing Rs.1300/- to Rs.1,500/- only. To prove this, bill No.0181578 dated.25.05.2016 is marked as Ext.A1 and bill No.7968685 dated.25.07.2016 is marked as Ext.A2 which indicate amounts due as Rs.1,442/- and Rs.1,370/- respectively. The complainant received a bimonthly electricity bill for Rs.13,713/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred and thirteen only) for the period from 23.07.2016 to 23.09.2016 marked Ext.A3 which shows bill No.2000167 and receipt No.6532016100710217 dated.7.10.2016 and amount due is Rs.13,713/-. According to the complainant, this bill is an irregular bill because there are only four members in his family and there were no family functions or any special celebrations in his house for the subject period and also no electric machinery has been used in his house or premises. Wiring and earth system installed in his house building were also got checked by a qualified licensed technician. Complainant also received a bill No.2000740 dated.29.11.2016 for Rs.5,349/- marked as Ext.A4 which shows receipt No.65320161129102017 dated.29.11.2016 for Rs.5,349/-. Complainant received last Bill No.6532170112004 for Rs.Nil marked as Ext.A5 which indicates advance of Rs.2,015/- paid by the complainant. Complainant paid charge for meter checking as per bill number 2000232 dated.05.10.2016 marked as Ext.A6 which shows receipt No.65320161005101052 dated.05.10.2016 an amount paid as Rs.200/-. Complainant sent a request letter dated.27.09.2016 to the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEBL, Olavakkode which is marked as Ext.A7 which requests the latter to replace the defective energy meter, to cancel the present electricity bill and to issue a fresh bill matching to the actual consumption. But the engineer asked the complainant to pay the bill amount along with meter testing fee of Rs.210/- towards the cost of testing energy meter. Complainant also sent a request letter dated.07.10.2016 about excess bill to Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, Olavakkode photo copy of which is marked as Ext.A8 which indicates a request to the opposite party to accept the bill amount of Rs.13,713/- and to refund excess amount after technical verification in the ensuing bimonthly electricity bill. The complainant also filed a certificate (original) marked as Ext.A10 which is issued by Mr.Sarfudeen (license No.CC 11021) which states that electrical work and earth system in the house of the complainant were checked by him in all respects and no leakage or defects were found in the 1st floor of complainant’s house. Complainant also filed photo copy of IVth and final stage certificate issued by V.Prasad, Registered Supervisor, Department of Urban Affairs, Govt.of Kerala (Registration No.C1-3738/2000/165 (15A) marked as Ext.A9 which certifies that the work in the house of the complainant has been fully and finally completed. As per the version filed by the opposite party it is agreed that complainant is a consumer of KSEB Ltd. with consumer No. 11577 and the complainant received bimonthly electricity bill for Rs.13,713/- for the period from 23.07.2016 to 23.09.2016 for consuming 1657 units of electricity. According to the opposite party, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and he has the only remedy to approach the CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman. Opposite party also contends that complainant was using 300 to 330 units bimonthly but received an excess bill for consuming 1657 units for the subject period of 23.07.2016 to 23.09.2016. In this case a parallel meter was installed by the opposite party at the complainant’s premises along with the existing meter to check whether the disputed meter shows any deviation. After four days no anomaly was detected in the original meter and it showed the same reading as the parallel meter. Hence, according to opposite party the disputed meter was working properly and since complainant was not satisfied with the meter testing, after collecting the required challenge test fee, the meter to be tested was removed and the same was sent to TMR division, Shornur where the disputed meter was tested in the presence of the complainant and the tested meter was found ok. The challenge test report dated.26.10.2016 issued by KSEB Ltd, TMR, Division Shornur was marked as Ext.B1 which shows the observations and remarks as “tested the meter and found ok the errors are within permissible limit”. Opposite party further contends that the KSEBL Officers on physical inspection of the complainant’s house found that the upstair construction work was being carried out and the complainant used electricity for welding, concrete cutting, cutting tiles, water pumping, wiring in connection with construction and extension work which resulted in huge power consumption being reflected in the meter reading. According to the opposite party, this is the only reason for high meter reading in September 2016. Further, opposite party also contends that the document produced by the complainant, marked as Ext.A9, which is dated. “18.03.2016” and issued by V.Prasad is also disputed by the opposite party because, the date.”18.03.2016” was written by hand in black ink while other words in the document were printed which indicates that this certificate/document was not actually issued on 18.03.2016 but was fabricated. Further, if Ext.A9 certificate was admitted by the opposite party and the construction work was completed on 18.03.2016, the electricity bill from January 2016 to April 2016 would have shown a very high figure of electricity consumption which was not recorded between January to May 2016. Hence, according to the opposite party, extension work of the complainant was not completed in March 2016. Opposite party also contends that Ext.A10 document shows no defect or leakage in the 1st Floor of the complainant’s house. Hence, opposite party contends that the construction work was done during the period between 23.07.2016 and 23.09.2016. Under these circumstances the energy consumption shown in the meter is actually used by the complainant consumer and it is paryed by the opposite party to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost.
From the pleas, contentions and the documents filed before this Forum, we understand that the disputed meter is seen to be devoid of any defect. It is also observed that after causing necessary tests to be conducted in the presence of the complainant, the disputed meter has been proved to be working properly. Further, it is also viewed that the complainant has not been able to prove beyond doubt his construction and extension work have been completed in March 2016 itself and the completion certificate filed by him is also seen to be dubious regarding the date of issue. It is also observed that complainant has not taken any steps to produce for cross examination before this Forum Mr.V.Prasad who is seen to have issued the controversial IVth and final stage certificate to the complainant in which only the date. “18.03.2016” has been alleged to have been written by hand in black ink. Hence we view that under the above circumstances complainant has not been able to prove that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have been committed by the opposite party.
The result is that complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of January 2018.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Abstract
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Original Bill No.0181578 dated.25.05.2016 issued by KSEB Ltd. to the complainant
Ext.A2 - Original Bill No.7968685 dated.25.07.2016 issued by KSEB Ltd. to the complainant
Ext.A3 - Original Bill No.2000167 dated.07.10.2016 issued by KSEB Ltd. to the complainant
Ext.A4 - Original Bill No.2000740 dated.29.11.2016 issued by KSEB Ltd. to the complainant
Ext.A5 - Original Bill No.6512170112004 dated.23.01.16 issued by KSEB Ltd. to the
complainant (Nil Bill)
Ext.A6 - Original Bill No.2000232 dated.05.10.2016 issued by KSEB Ltd. to the complainant
Ext.A7 - Original Request letter dated.27.09.2016 given by the complainant to the opposite
party
Ext.A8 - Photo copy of request letter dated.07.10.2016 given by the complainant to the opposite
party
Ext.A9 - Photo copy of IV th & Final Stage Certificate issued by V.Prasad, Registered
Supervisor
Ext.A10- Original certificate issued by Sarfudeen stating that electrical wok and earth system
in the house of the complainant checked by him in all respect and no leakage or
defects found in the 1st floor of complainant’s house
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party
Ext.B1 - Photo copy of Challenge Test Report dated.26.10.2016 issued by Kerala State
Electricity Board Limited, TMR Division, Shornur,
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Narayana Naik.N
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost
Nil
