DOF.8/8/2005

DOO.10/8/2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 10^th    day of  August    2010

CC.208/2005

K.P.P.Rabiya,

Fathima Manzil,

P.O.Pappinisseri,

(Rep. by Adv.P.K.Mahesh)                              Complainant

1. Asst.Engineer,

   Electrical Major Section, KSEB,

   Pappinisseri.

2. Executive Engineer,

   KSEB, Vidyuthi Bhavan, Kannur.

3. Secretary, KSEB,

   Thiruvananthapuram. 

   (Rep. by Adv.T.Sarala)                                 Opposite parties

ORDER

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to remove the defective meter by replacing a  defect free electric meter and to set off the excess bill together with compensation  a sum of Rs.2500/- and cost.

            The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: complainant is a consumer under opposite party. His consumer Number is 2935. His earlier number was 5372. The average consumption reading of the complainant for bimonthly was around 100 units till January 2004. That meter was working properly and there were no complaints. But in February 2004, that meter was replaced by a new meter by the opposite party without giving notice or intimation to the complainant. The replaced meter showed incorrect meter reading. Actual consumption and reading are totally different. There was no increase in the consumption of electricity but meter reading showed several times higher than the earlier consumption. The replaced meter shows starting reading as 3777. This meter was one already used some where else. It was complained and opposite party replaced it in November 2004. This meter also shows exorbitant reading of average consumption of more than 400 units. The complainant has not used more electricity than what was used till January 2004. He verified the meter and found the same running very fast. Complainant approached opposite party again and they found the meter is defective. They promised that they will replace it very soon but it was not done. Registered notice was sent on 18.1.05. Opposite party neither sent reply nor replaced the meter. The electricity bill paid in accordance with the defect meter reading from March, 2004 to May 2005 is Rs.8,236/-. In the meantime opposite party sent a notice to the complainant to pay an amount towards the security deposit. Once it was Rs.3, 237/-, but later the opposite party reduced it to Rs.1519/-. The complainant made security deposit of Rs.200/- equal to the charge of three months consumption at that time. The complainant was compelled to pay the increased electricity bills to avoid disconnection of electricity. Opposite party did not replace the defective meter though promised replacement each and every occasion. Complainant suffered economic loss and mental sufferings. Since it is caused due to the deficiency in service opposite party is liable to pay the loss sustained by the complainant.        Hence this complaint.

            Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered   appearance and filed version denying the main allegations of the complaint. The facts in brief of the contentions of opposite parties are as follows: Complainant is a consumer with consumer number 2935 under electrical section, Pappinissery. The meter of complainant for consumer number 2935 was not functioning properly for years. The monthly consumption was not 100 units. The defect was partial struck up in nature. This defect has not been detected till the meter reading was taken on 21.7.03. It shows a drastic drop in consumption of electricity. The connected loan of the house of the complainant was 2604 Walts with domestic appliance like T.V set, Refrigerator, Grinding machine, Motors etc. besides light point. A domestic consumer with appliance mentioned above could never be able to maintain the bimonthly consumption as 100 units. As it was found unusual drop in consumption it was specially inspected and the meter was found in partial struck up condition. Due to non availability of good meter at that time, the KSEB could replace the defective meter only on 29.9.03 and after taking previous average an invoice was issued for 112 units for 7/03 to 9/03. The meter installed on 29.9.03 was an electro mechanical meter having initial reading of 3442. There is nothing wrong in re-using a used meter. When temporary connections are dismantled those good meters are reused. In such meters there will have reading already recorded. It does not mean the meter is faulty. After the installation of good meter reading showed considerable increase from 257 units to 432 units. On 1.11.04 a complaint was filed disputing the increase of consumption and demanded to change the new meter. 1^st opposite party conducted a thorough inspection on 17.11.04 but he has not found out any defects. But the checking was without using standard static meter supplied by Electrical inspectorate he could not ensure 100% accuracy. On this point the complainant was adamant on the changing of the meter. Hence on the same day that meter was changed with a new static meter with an initial reading as 04. This static meter also showed an increase in consumption. It is the false notion of the complainant that her bimonthly consumption definitely would be 100 units. Complainant again demanded to change that new tested static meter.The opposite party received a registered notice on 20.1.05 for changing the meter. 1^st opposite party conducted inspection on21.1.05 using a standard static meter checked and supplied by Electrical Inspectorate. The testing was conducted in the presence of the complainant and his family and no error was detected in that inspection. Then she was explained the details she was not satisfied and repeated the plea of replacement again. The complainant also refused to sign in the scaling certificate. The opposite party had tested the meter as per regulation 43(3) of the KSEB Terms and conditions of supply, 2005. The complainant is not entitled to get an order to replace the new meter since it is installed after proper testing complainant is bound to pay the bill amount. Opposite party has been taking the periodical meter reading and bill is issued. The opposite party had claimed security deposit as per regulation 13 of the supply code 2005. The complainant has no bonafides. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party and hence to dismiss the complaint.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed in the        complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW 1 and Exts.A1 to A6.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

            Admittedly complainant is the consumer of opposite party. The main case of the complainant is hat his present meter running fast and shows grossly excess reading resulting high increase in the amount of payment in the bill. This change affected after the installation of new meter. Exts.A5 bills and A6 bills shows notable difference in reading of units of consumption and consequent payment of amount before and after the instillation of alleged new meter.

            The complainant who is examined as PW1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination. It is in tune with the pleadings. Opposite party contended that the complainant’s old meter was not functioning properly for years. The defect was found when the meter reading was taken on 21.7.03. The defect was partial struck up in nature. It shows drastic drop. Opposite party could replace the defective meter only on 29.9.03 and after taking previous average an invoice was issued for 112 units for 7/03 to 9/03. The meter installed on 29.9.03 was an electro mechanical meter having initial reading of 3442. Complainant has the case that the meter was one already used. But it was admitted by opposite party and contended that there was nothing wrong in re-using a used meter. Opposite party also pointed out that when temporary connections are dismantled those good meters are reused. If that be so it is difficult to find fault with opposite party in installing the used meter. So also the already recorded reading will not create any liability to complainant. Any how as per the complaint the meter was changed on 17.1.04 with a new tested static meter with an initial reading as 04. But the same also shown increase in consumption. Opposite party has given the actual consumption in version as follows:

This reading shows that the allegation of the complainant that the average consumption of the complainant for bimonthly was round 100 units cannot be believed at all. Both the meters changed, after the defect has been detected the old meter, shown increased reading. Complainant has taken the position that the increased reading is the default of the newly installed meter. In the letter received by opposite party on 20.1.05complainant demanded for change of meter again. DW1 has stated in his affidavit evidence that “ Cu ]cm-Xn-bpsS ASn-Øm-\-¯n 21.1.2005 \p FXnÀ I£n-IÄ ]cm-Xn-¡m-cn-bpsS aoäÀ Electrical Inspectorate supply sN¿p¶ Static meter D]-tbm-Kn¨v ]cn-tim-[n-¡p-I-bpT  sNbvXp.  Cu ]cn-tim-[\ ]cm-Xn-¡m-cn-bp-tS-bpT  Ah-cpsS IpS-T-_-§-fp-sS-bpT km¶n-²-y-¯n-em-bn-cp-¶p. Cu]-cn-tim-[-\-bn ]cm-Xn-¡m-cn-bp-sS-ao-ä-dn\p Hcp-X-I-cm-dp-T-D-f-f-Xmbn ImWm³IgnªnÃ. ]c#mXn-¡m-cnsb  hkvXp-X-IÄ ]dªv a\-Ên-em-¡n-sb-¦n-epT AhÀ koen§v kÀ«n-^n¡än H¸p-sh-¡m³ X¿m-dm-bnÓ. DW1 was elaborately cross examined for complainant. DW1 deposed in his cross examination that             “aoäÀ XI-cm-dn-söp ]mÀ«nsb t_m[-y-s¸-Sp-¯m³ Ign-bm-ª-Xp-sIm-­mWv c­m-as¯ XhW aoäÀ amän s¡mSp-¯-Xp….-X-I-cm-dn-Ãm-sX-bmWv 2þm-as¯ aoäÀ amän-b-sX¶p tcJ t\m¡nbm  ImWp-T.”

            On going through the evidence available on record it can be seen that opposite party has responded the complaints of the complainant. Even after finding that there was no defect to the meter installed for the second time, opposite party has installed another new meter for the better satisfaction of the complainant. More over even now opposite party also taken the position that the remedy is not exhausted before the complainant and stated clearly that she is at liberty to approach the Electrical Inspector if any test is required. It is also pointed out that as per conditions 58 of Terms and conditions of supply 2005. Consumer can install his own meter as per the instructions of the Board. The evidence shows that complainant has not taken any such steps to make it assure  the condition of her meter.

            The circumstances together with the evidence adduced by the complainant failed to establish the case of the complainant. Deficiency in service could not be proved against opposite parties. Hence we are of opinion that complaint is not entitled to get any remedy as prayed in the complaint. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. 

                              Sd/-                            Sd/-                                       Sd/-

President                      Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the letter sent to OP

A2.Notice issued by OP dt. 28.12.04

A3 & 4.Postal Ads

A5 & 6.Bills issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1.   Muhammed Kunhi

                                                Forwarded by order/

Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.