CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu.M.Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.163/10
Monday the 30th day of April,, 2012
Petitioner : Yasmine Ismail,
River Valley,
Muttambalam PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Kennedy M.George)
Vs.
Opposite parties : The Asst.Exe.Engineer,
Electrical Section,
Kottaym East,
KSEB, Kottayam-686 001.
2) The Secretary,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,
KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram PO.
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member.
The case of the complainants presented on 23-06-11 is as follows. She had an electric connection from the opposite party vide consumer No.21301 (Mol). The complaint is against unreasonable bill which was issued on 6-5-2010 for the period from 5-4-10 to 6-5-10. From 1-4-10 to 21-5-10 the complainant and their family members were went to Riyad in Soudhi Arabia and the house was locked up for that period. The main switch was also put off for that period. While preparing the invoice the opposite parties did not comply the conditions of supply with regard to door locked premises. The complainant paying monthly charges as per the bills and invoice given to her and there is no dues at all payable by the complainant to opposite parties. On 6-5-10, the 1st opposite party issued an invoice No.11114150, for an amount of Rs.57,662/- and it is to be remitted on or before 27-5-10. But it comes to notice only on 21-5-10 by the complainant, when she returned from Riyad. Due to the exorbitant bill, the complainant came to opposite party and complained against the matter. The officials erected a parallel meter and subsequently an officer came to the premises on 5-6-10 and took off the meter for testing at TMR, who is an incompetent person. That act itself is against the provisions of law. On 5-6-10 the meter was taken for test and the result was published on 11-6-10. It is not an act done in good faith and it also creates some serious doubts. After that on 7-6-10(just after the disputed bill) the 1st opposite party issued another bill for the month of May and it was only Rs. 888/-. If there is a leakage or any defect in the internal installation in the premises about the system the meter reading would have been definitely incurred or it might have doubled prior to last month. The complainant’s consumption/bill for the month 4/10 was Rs.1582/-, 3/10 was Rs.2267/-, 2/10 was Rs.1068, 1/10 was Rs.902 consecutively. From the above it is evident that the bill for Rs. 57,662/- issued is illegal, irregular and without any basis and it lacks bonafides. The complainant is not liable to pay the additional bill issued by the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
The notice was served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows.
The case of the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The connection of the complainant under Electrical Section Kottayam East is 21301 and the
tariff sanctioned to the complainant is LT-1A, domestic. The complainant’s housing villa is situated in the posh housing colony namely Skyline River Valley Muttambalam. There are about 20 posh villas situated in this colony. The electric connections to these villas are effected by drawing under ground cables on requests and as per regulation No.57 of Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. As such electric meters to these villas are installed in a separate electric room, near the transformer and connections are effected by drawing LT-UG cables after the metering equipments. Hence the meter reader is not restricted in any manner to take meter reading of the premises though the home is under door locked condition. Petitioner’s connection is also effected by drawing 110 meter LT, under ground cable after the metering point, at the option of the consumer. While taking the monthly reading of the complainant’s meter on 6-5-10, it was seen that the meter recorded a consumption of 7653 units, which is relatively high as far as the previous consumption pattern of the complainant. Since the recorded consumption was found high, the meter was examined by the meter reader and noticed that there was no prima facie defect with the meter. Therefore a bill for Rs.57662/- was issued to the consumer as such and delivery the bill by hand. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A3 series marked. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. B1 to B5 the meter testing reports were marked as Ext.X1 and X2.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides and the meter testing reports. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties issued an additional bill to him without any basis. According to him the bill which was issued to the complainant is not for consumed electricity, because petitioner and family were in abroad during the billing period. The opposite party has taken a contention that the bill is for actual consumption on the basis of the meter reading. According to them the meter was working properly, and the same was on the basis of the actual consumption. Moreover the meter was tested by laboratory and the electrical inspector. From both reports it can be seen that the meter was working properly without any error. From the available documents and evidence it can be seen that the meter was working properly without any error. The specific case of the complainant is that during the disputed bill period they were in abroad. According to them at that period they are no consumed so much of electricity. The available documents it can be seen that the complainant’s usual monthly consumptions were very low than the disputed bill. The complainant is only liable to remit the actual consumption of electricity. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. Moreover the opposite parties have not a case that the complainant had illegally consumed electricity by means of tampering or other ways. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. (1) We set aside the disputed bill(A1) dtd 6-5-10. (2) The opposite party can issue fresh bill for the disputed period by taking meter readings average of (6 months before and 6 months after). Both parties will suffer their respective costs.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu.M.Thomas, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents produced by complainant
Ext.A1-is the copy of bill dtd 6/5/10
Ext.A2-is the copy of passport
Ext.A3-Series is the copies of bill dtd, 8/1/10,5/2/10,5/3/10,5/4/10 and 7/6/10
Documents produced by opposite parties
Ext.B1-is the copy of meter reading register
Ext.B2-is the copy of representation dtd 3/6/10
Ext.B3-is the copy of letter dtd 3-6-10 for sending meter test
Ext.B4-isthe copy of statement dtd 5/6/10
Ext.B5-is the copy of test report
Ext.B6-is the copy of report from electrical inspectorate
Ext.B7-is the copy of letter dtd 10-10-11from meter testing laboratory
Ext.X1-Meter testing report
Ext.X2-Meter testing report
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
