The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:

 

            The complainant is running a small pan shop cum cool bar by way of self employment and the income derived from the shop is his sole livelihood. He is a Low Tension – 7B consumer of the opposite party bearing no.2402-0. The complainant usually consumes electricity averaging below 200 units for every two months. But on 24/10/09, the opposite party inspected the shop and issued a bill of Rs. 13,849/- alleging that complainant consumed 1569 units of electricity during the period between 24/08/09 to 23/10/09. Hence on the same day, the complainant forwarded complaint to the second opposite party and thereby the opposite party inspected the meter and installed a new meter and which found satisfactory. The meter at the time of inspection was defective/faulty meter and hence such huge units were shown and excess was demanded. The complainant never consumed such huge units of electricity and therefore the bill for Rs. 13,849/- is illegal. The opposite party ought to have replaced the faulty meter in time. The act and illegal demand for such huge amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying to set aside the bill dtd 24/10/09, to direct the opposite party to stop such unfair trade practice and to pay compensation and cost.

            The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.

i)                    The complainant is a commercial electricity consumer of the opposite parties hence this complaint is not maintainable

ii)                   Average consumption excluding the challenged bill is below 200 units. But when the meter reader visited the premises for taking meter reading on 24/10/09, the consumption was found to be 1567 units and accordingly a bill amounting to Rs.13,996/- was issued. The said bill was served based on the consumption recorded and hence there is no irregularity in issuing such a bill

iii)                 On receiving a complaint, a parallel meter was installed for checking the correctness of the meter and it was observed that both the meters were showing the same reading which is a clear indication that the challenged meter is correct. The excess consumption shown may be due to the use of defective appliances or due to the earth leakage in his wiring.

iv)                 If the petitioner has a case that the meter is faulty, it is for the petitioner to prove his argument. The petitioner is free to check the meter at TMR Pallom, or at Electrical Inspectorate for testing the accuracy. Without ascertaining the accuracy of the challenged meter, no value can be given to the petitioner’s allegation. If it is proved that the challenged meter is showing over reading, the opposite parties are ready to revise the bill reasonably as per clause no.42 of Terms and conditions of supply 2005

v)                  On 07/12/09 check reading of the complainant’s meter was taken and found his consumption is 95 units only for 43 days from 24-10-09, which establish that the meter is good. On 23-12-09 also, the meter reading was taken and the bimonthly consumption is found to be 128 units. This itself proves that the challenge meter is fault free.

According to the opposite parties there is no unfair act or deficiency of

service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the demand bill for Rs.13,996/-. Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.

Points for consideration are:

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavit filed by both parties and exhibits A1 to A2

and B1.

            Heard both parties and perused the documents placed on record. The complainant produced a copy of the complaint dtd 24/10/09 and it is marked as exhibit A2. In Ext.A2 the complainant requested the opposite parties to test the meter and do the necessary. The opposite party submitted that immediately on receipt of the said complaint, a parallel meter was installed for checking the correctness of the meter and it is observed that, both the meters are showing the same reading which proves that the meter is accurate. But according to the complainant the installation of parallel meter is not correct. The complainant’s counsel argued that if such a parallel meter was installed the opposite parties should have prepared a mahazar at the time of said installation and removal. But preparation of such mahazar is not mandated by any provision.

            The complainant averred that a new meter was installed pursuant to his complaint and that the old meter is under the custody of the opposite party. The opposite party produced the copy of the meter reading register and it is marked as Ext.B1. No where in the Ext.B1 meter reading register it is mentioned that the meter is faulty. As alleged by the complainant if a meter change occured, it would have been definitely recorded in the meter reading register. As there is no mentioning about the fault of the meter or change of the meter in the meter reading register we cannot come to the conclusion that the existing meter in the complainant’s premises is a new one.

            Complainant filed IA 241/10 to direct the opposite party to inspect the faulty old meter which is under the custody of the opposite party at the electrical inspectorate. From the aforementioned discussion we come to the conclusion that the complainant is still using the old meter which is error free. So the IA 241/10 is dismissed.

            On scanning ext.B1, it is understood that the consumption pattern prior to and after to the consumption under dispute is not having considerable variation. So in our opinion the opposite parties’ contention that the excess consumption may be due to the use of defective appliances or due to the earth leakage might be more probable. In our opinion no deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite parties as they have carried out the inspection of the meter immediately on receipt of the written complaint and found it to be correct. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point No.l the complaint is ordered as follows.

 

            Complaint is dismissed. Both parties will bear their costs.

 

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

                       

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-    

 

 

 

Ext.A1-Original bill for Rs.13,839/-

Ext.A2-Copy of letter dtd 24/10/09

Ext.B1-copy of meter reading register.

 

 

 

Despatched on / Received on

By Order,