BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 160/2003

Dated : 30.03.2009

Complainants:

1. Consumer Vigilance Centre, Sree Kovil, Kodunganoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. M. Vanajakumari, W/o R. Madhukumar, Meena Cottage, Karipu, Malayinkeezhu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

1. Assistant Engineer, KSEB Sub Section, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013.

    

2. Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, KSEB, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 4.

(By adv. G. Gopidas)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 10.03.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 12.02.2009, the Forum on 30.03.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that 2^nd complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide Con. No. 8213 under LT commercial tariff, that opposite party replaced the ordinary meter with an electronic meter without the consent of the complainant in the year 2002, that thereafter there was no significant difference in the meter reading till the issuance of a bill dated 01.01.2003 and that the said bill dated 01.01.2003 for Rs. 5,175/- is illegal and void. Hence this complaint to cancel the said bill and to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, that the opposite parties have every right to replace the ordinary meter by electronic meter, that the bill dated 01.01.2003 is for the energy consumed by the complainant, that the premises is occupied for one STD booth and one barber shop is not correct, that one beauty parlour is also functioning in the premises, that one Sri. C. Rajan, Proprietor of Glits Beauty Parlour has requested for testing the meter and remitted Rs. 60/- as testing fee, opposite parties received the meter test report from TMR only on 29.04.2003 and that in the said report it is seen that the meter is slow in full load. There is no deficiency in service. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bill dated 01.01.2003 cancelled?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of remitted amount?

3. Other reliefs and costs.

4. In support of the complaint, 2^nd complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P13 were marked. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed proof affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.

5. Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, 2^nd complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 8213 under LT commercial tariff. It has been the case of the complainant that in the year 2002, 1^st opposite party replaced the ordinary meter with an electronic meter without the consent of the complainant, that even after the replacement of meter, there was no significant difference in the meter reading, that on 01.07.2002 consumption was 110 units for which complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 376/-, on 02.09.2002, consumption rose to 163 units upon which complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 519/- and on 08.11.2002 consumption was 71 units upon which complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 271/- and that complainant has no dispute regarding the said bills. It has also been the case of the complainant that complainant was served with a bill dated 01.01.2003 for Rs. 5175/-. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill dated 01.07.2002, Ext. P2 is the copy of the bill dated 02/09/2002, Ext. P3 is the copy of the bill dated 01.11.2002, Ext. P4 is the copy of the bill dated 01.01.2003. As per Ext. P4, previous reading was 1919 on 01.11.2002 and reading on 01.01.2003 was 2770. Hence the consumption is 851 units for two months upon which the bill issued for Rs. 5175/-. Submission urged by the complainant is that from 07/02 to 11/02 (for 5 months) the average consumption was only 100 per bi-month, that the premises is occupied by one barber shop and STD booth, that the bi-month energy will not in any case come more than 150/200 units and that the abnormal increase in consumption as shown in Ext. P4 under challenge will only be due to defective meter. On a complaint before the opposite party, complainant was asked to pay Rs. 60/- on 31.01.2003 for examining the meter. Ext. P5 is the copy of the receipt for Rs. 60/- dated 31.01.2003. On receipt of Rs. 60/- it is submitted by the complainant that the meter was taken for testing on 15.02.2003. Ext. P6 is the copy of the bill dated 01.03.2003. As per Ext. P6, bimonthly consumption is 171 units on installation of the new meter and the amount to be remitted is Rs. 720/- and on 17.03.2003 it is seen remitted by the said amount by the complainant. Main thrust of argument advanced by the complainant was to the effect that even though the old meter was taken for testing on 15.02.2003 which was sent for testing to TMR unit only on 07.03.2003, but till date the meter test report was not furnished by the opposite party. In the affidavit of opposite party it is stated that the meter testing report received only on 29.04.2003 and in the report it is seen that the meter is slow in full load. Opposite party did not file the meter testing report. Ext. P7 is the copy of the letter informing the complainant that complainant was allowed to remit arrears of current charges in instalments. Ext. P8 is the receipts. As per Ext. P8, it is seen remitted Rs. 2010(current charges Rs. 1585/-, RF/others Rs. 125/- and interest Rs. 300/-) on 01.02.2003 and Rs. 1675/- (current charges Rs. 1585/-, RF Rs. 30/- and interest Rs. 60/-) on 04.03.2003 by the complainant. Opposite party admitted the said remittances in their affidavit. It is pertinent to note that the said remittances (as per Ext. P8) were in connection with Ext. P4 bill dated 01.01.2003 for Rs. 5175/-. As per Ext. P13 bill on 02.05.2003 energy consumption is 129 units. While as per Ext. P11 bill on 01.07.2003 the energy consumption is 243 units and as per Ext. P12 bill on 01.09.2003 energy consumption is 119 units. It will be useful if we take the pattern of energy consumption prior to and after the issuance of bill under dispute dated 01.01.2003. It is pertinent to note that prior to 01.01.2003, the energy consumption as on 01.07.2002 was 110 units as per Ext. P1, 163 units as on 02.09.2002 as per Ext. P2. That means from 01.05.2002 to 02.09.2002(for four months) total consumption is 110+163 units=263 units. Hence the average bi-monthly consumption would become 263/2=131.5 units. After 01.01.2003, on installation of new meter as per Ext. P6 dated 01.03.2003, bimonthly consumption was 171 units, as per Ext. P13 dated 02.05.2003, bimonthly consumption was 129 units, as per Ext. P11 dated 01.07.2003, bimonthly consumption was 243 units and as per Ext. P12 dated 01.09.2003, the bimonthly consumption was 119 units. Evidently as per Exts. P6, P11 and P12 after installation of new meter, the average bimonthly consumption for six months period was 171+129+243/3=543/3=180.9 units. Before the installation of new meter the bimonthly average was 131.5 units. New meter is seen installed as per Ext. P6. On going through the pattern of energy consumption, it is seen that the bimonthly energy consumption recorded in Ext. P4 is 851 units. Though the said meter was taken for testing by the opposite party, opposite party did not furnish the test report. Installation of new meter as per Ext. P6 and non-production of test meter report by opposite party would confirm complainant's stand that the prior meter was defective and meter reading recorded was abnormally. In view of the above we have to take average of bimonthly average energy consumptions prior to and after the installation of new meter to determine the actual bimonthly consumption as on 01.01.2003. As aforesaid the bimonthly average prior to 01.01.2003 is 131.5 units and bimonthly average after 01.01.2003 is 180.9 units. The average of both averages will become 131.5+180.9/2=132+181/2=313/2=151.5=152 units. We fix bimonthly average consumption as on 01.01.2003 at 152 units and as such the meter readings recorded in Ext. P4 dated 01.01.2003 as 851 units is found abnormal and incorrect. Complainant is liable to remit energy charge only for 152 units. Complainant is entitled for refund of excess amount if any collected by the opposite party in connection with Ext. P4 bill dated 01.01.2003. As per Ext. P8, there are two receipts seen served by opposite parties in connection with Ext. P7 instalment facilities regarding Ext. P4 bill dated 01.01.2003. On 01.02.2003 an amount of Rs. 2010 is seen collected from the complainant by the opposite party and on 04.03.2003 Rs. 1675/- is also seen collected from the complainant by the opposite party. Evidently(as per receipts in Ext. P8) opposite party had collected an amount of Rs. 3685/- from the complainant in connection with Ext. P7 instalment facilities regarding Ext. P4 bill dated 01.01.2003. Collection of excess amount on the basis of faulty meter reading will amount to deficiency in service. In the light of evidence available on records, we find complainant is entitled to get cancelled the bill dated 01.01.2003 and complainant is also entitled for refund of excess amount remitted, after adjusting the amount for 152 units .

6. In the result, complaint is allowed. The bill dated 01.01.2003 for Rs. 5,175/- (Ext. P4) issued by the 1^st opposite party to 2^nd complainant is hereby quashed. Opposite party is directed to levy energy charge only for 152 units in connection with Ext. P4 bill dated 01.01.2003. Opposite party shall adjust the energy charge for 152 units as on 01.01.2003 from the remitted amount of Rs. 3685/- and refund the balance amount to the 2^nd complainant along with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/-. The said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12% if not paid, within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th March 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 160/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of demand and disconnection notice for Rs. 376/-.

P2 - Copy of demand and disconnection notice for Rs. 519/-.

P3 - Copy of demand and disconnection notice for Rs. 271/-. P4 - Copy of demand and disconnection notice for Rs. 5,175/-.

P5 - Copy of interim receipt of Book No. 977 dated 31.01.2003.

P6 - Copy of Bill No. A-17701 for Rs. 720/-.

P7 - Copy of letter dated 01.02.2003 issued by Asst. Exe. Engr.

P8 - Copy of receipts dated 01.02.2003 and 04.03.2003.

P9 - Copy of letter dated 24.03.2003 issued to the opposite parties by the complainant.

P10 - Copy of receipt dated 29.09.2003.

P11 - Copy of demand and disconnection notice of Bill No. W 0021 dated 01.07.2003 for Rs. 1523/-.

P12 - Copy of demand and disconnection notice dated 01.09.2003.

P13 - Copy of bill No. W 0021 dated 02.05.2003 for Rs. 563/-.

III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT