DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

 Dated this the 18^th day of November 2024

Filed on: 06.12.2022

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                                                                                                    Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                                                                                        Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                                                                            Hon’ble Member

CC No. 561 OF 2022

Complainant

Mathai, S/o Adv.  Eapen,  Vettath Swaroopam Palace, Adv. Vettath Mathai, MLC Lane, Kochi-682019

(Complainant Rep. By. Adv. T.G. Rajan,  Vettath Swaroopam Palace, Adv. Vettath Mathai, MLC Lane, Kochi-682019)

VS

Opposite Parties

1. Asst. Executive Engineer,  KSEB Ltd, Vyttila Office, Kochi-682019
2. Managing Director, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram 695004, Email:cmdkseb@kseb.in

(OP’s Rep. By. Adv. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Sree Chakram (Apts), 4^th Floor, Ponoth Road, Kaloor (PO), Cochin-17)

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant, a senior citizen and long-standing consumer of Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) Ltd. for over 16 years holds consumer number 1155566022485 for their domestic connection. Their bi-monthly consumption has typically been low, averaging around 361 to 450 units. However, on 15th and 16th November 2022, during a period of lightning, the complainant observed their meter running abnormally fast between 8:00 pm and 9:00 pm. This issue was isolated to their domestic meter, as other meters associated with their nearby church, office, and son’s residence did not exhibit similar behaviour.

On 16th November 2022, the complainant lodged an initial complaint with opposite party No.1 regarding the suspected meter fault. Following an inadequate response, they escalated the complaint by sending a registered letter and email to both opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party initially indicated a willingness to replace the meter, but later, opposite party No.1 instructed the complainant to purchase a new meter, get it tested at the Electrical Inspectorate, and bear the cost of Rs. 1000/- for testing. The complainant stated that since meter rent is regularly paid, KSEB is responsible for providing and maintaining a functional meter.

Due to the alleged malfunction, the complainant’s latest bill reflects a steep increase in consumption to 1496 units, resulting in an excessive charge of Rs. 14,477. The complainant requests that KSEB calculate the bill based on an average of previous bills and replace the faulty meter without additional charges. Despite multiple complaints, KSEB has threatened to disconnect the power supply, prompting the complainant to seek intervention from this commission. The complainant requests that disconnection be stayed, and a directive be issued to KSEB to install a new meter and calculate charges based on typical usage within 30 days.

2. NOTICE:

The commission issued a notice to the opposite parties, who subsequently filed their version.

3. THE VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES

The first opposite party, represented by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Vyttila, presents that the complainant a domestic consumer under Consumer No. 1155566022485 with a three-phase connection and connected load of 6444 W, has been using an L & T electronic energy meter installed since 30/06/2015. This meter has functioned correctly since installation.

Acknowledges an increase in the complainant’s consumption for the billing period ending 18/11/2022, recording a consumption of 1496 units, resulting in a bill of Rs. 14,477. However, they refute the complainant's claims that he reported the issue on 16/11/2022, stating that the complaint was only received on 30/11/2022 after the bill was issued. The meter reading details show steady and high consumption prior to November 15 and 16, contradicting the complainant’s assertion that the increased usage was due to lightning on those dates.

Further, the opposite parties dismisses the complainant’s claim of a faulty meter due to lightning, explaining that the electronic meter is equipped with a surge protector and would not be impacted solely by lightning. No damage was reported to any nearby consumers on the same line, nor to the complainant’s other connections.

Following the complainant’s report, the meter was inspected by the Assistant Engineer on 30/11/2022 and found to be working correctly. The opposite parties denies instructing the complainant to buy a new meter, clarifying that they offered to test the meter at an accredited lab if the complainant was still doubtful, per the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014.

Based on these findings, the opposite parties  maintain that the meter is functioning properly and attributes the high consumption to potential internal issues within the complainant’s premises, such as faulty wiring or equipment. Consequently, they reject the demand to revise the bill and insist on payment for the recorded consumption.

4. Evidence:

The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with four documents, which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4.

• Exhibit A1: Copy of the notice issued to the opposite party, along with the postal receipt.
• Exhibit A2: Copy of the notice sent to the second opposite party via email.
• Exhibit A3: Copy of the first complaint to the first opposite party.
• Exhibit A4: Copy of the bill issued to the complainant by the first opposite party, amounting to Rs. 14,477/-.

The opposite parties also submitted one document, which is marked Exhibit B1:

• Exhibit B1: Copy of the previous billing energy statement, consisting of 2 pages.

5. Points for Consideration:

i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?

iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT NOTE BY SRI T.G. RAJAN THE COUNSEL COMPLAINANT

The complainant alleges that the KSEB meter installed in his residence by the first opposite party is defective, recording an abnormally high consumption rate specifically during thunderstorms and lightning. This unusual meter activity, beyond the complainant's control, leads to inflated billing.

The complainant promptly informed the first and second opposite parties via phone and registered post, after which the second opposite party instructed the Deputy Chief Engineer to dispatch a team to inspect the meter. During the inspection, the team confirmed that the meter appeared to function correctly under normal conditions but acknowledged that it may temporarily accelerate during lightning events.

The opposite parties indicated their willingness to replace the meter if directed by the Commission. The complainant, therefore, requests the Commission to order the replacement of the faulty meter within 30 days and to recalculate his bill based on the average consumption over the past three months, reflecting a fair billing amount.

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT NOTES BY SRI. K.N. RADHAKRISHNAN, COUNSEL FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES (KSEBL)

KSEBL argues that the disputed bill issued to the complainant was based on accurate meter readings and a subsequent inspection, making the complainant liable for the recorded electricity consumption as per the Electricity Act and Supply Code. KSEBL asserts that there was no negligence or misconduct in issuing the bill.

If the complainant disputes the meter’s accuracy, KSEBL states he may formally request testing by applying and required fees, as prescribed by law. Following the complainant’s initial complaint, the Deputy Chief Engineer directed a team to inspect the meter, which was found to be functioning properly. KSEBL emphasizes that any further testing should be conducted following the proper legal procedures if the complainant still has doubts.

KSEBL denies any fault or errors on its part in issuing the bill, as it was calculated based on actual meter readings. Therefore, they argue that the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought and maintain that no specific allegations of wrongdoing have been raised against KSEBL.

We have meticulously considered the detailed submissions of both parties, as well as thoroughly reviewed the entire record of evidence, including the argument notes.

i). Maintainability of the Complaint.

The complainant has invoked Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which allows consumers to file complaints regarding deficiencies in services or unfair trade practices by service providers. The Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (KSEBL) falls within the ambit of "service providers," as they provide a public utility service. The complainant’s grievances regarding a potentially defective meter and resulting inflated billing, despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, establish a cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

ii). Deficiency in Service and Negligence

The complainant alleges that his KSEB meter, under normal conditions, functions correctly but accelerates abnormally during lightning and thunderstorms, resulting in inflated billing. The complainant asserts that he reported the issue to KSEBL promptly, but was met with inadequate responses and was required to bear the cost of testing the meter. KSEBL’s refusal to replace or test the meter at its expense, despite evidence of possible meter malfunction during lightning (acknowledged by KSEBL’s inspection team), indicates a deficiency in service.

The KSEBL, as a public utility provider, is responsible for ensuring accurate billing based on functional meters, especially when the complainant regularly pays meter rent. Requiring the complainant to pay for testing a meter that appears to have external fault indications due to environmental conditions constitutes negligence on the part of KSEBL. KSEBL’s duty of care includes promptly addressing complaints related to potential meter faults without placing undue burden on consumers.

Relevant Case Laws

The legal reasoning in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) established that negligence or deficiency in service includes failure to provide timely and effective service to consumers, thus holding the provider liable. If a public service provider fails to maintain accurate billing and service facilities, they are liable for deficiency in service. In light of these, KSEBL’s actions constitute a deficiency in service by failing to promptly and adequately address the complainant’s legitimate concerns.

Upon evaluating the evidence presented, including Exhibit A1 (complaint notification), Exhibit A4 (inflated bill), and Exhibit B1 (previous billing history), it is apparent that the complainant’s bi-monthly consumption historically averaged 361 to 450 units, far below the disputed 1496 units. This sharp increase, coinciding with the lightning events on 15^th  and 16^th  November 2022, reasonably suggests an anomaly. Additionally, KSEBL’s inspection team noted potential meter irregularities during such events, which supports the complainant’s claims of irregular meter readings in specific environmental conditions.

KSEBL’s insistence that the complainant bear testing costs for a meter possibly affected by external factors demonstrates an unfair trade practice, contrary to the Consumer Protection Act’s objective of safeguarding consumer rights. Given that KSEBL is obligated to maintain accurate equipment, their refusal to either replace or adequately test the meter at their expense represents a service deficiency and a failure to uphold fair trade practices.

iii). Liability of the Opposite Party

KSEBL, as the service provider, is liable for ensuring that consumers are billed accurately based on functional equipment. The Commission finds that KSEBL’s failure to replace or test the complainant’s meter at their expense after receiving complaints constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Furthermore, their attempt to pass testing costs onto the complainant is not justified, given the circumstances of the meter’s inconsistent behaviour during specific weather conditions.

We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the Opposite Parties.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence, the prayer is allowed as follows:

1. The Opposite Parties shall replace the existing meter at the complainant’s residence with a new, fully functional meter.
2. The commission shall set aside the inflated bill amount of ₹14,477 (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy-Seven Only), and any excess amount if already paid, shall be adjusted or refunded accordingly. The Opposite Parties shall calculate the complainant’s bill based on an average of the previous three billing cycles, reflective of typical usage, and issue an appropriate revised bill.
3. The Opposite Parties shall pay ₹5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation to the complainant in recognition of the mental and financial distress caused by the Opposite Parties' deficient service. This amount is awarded for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, as well as for the mental agony and physical hardships endured by the complainant.
4. The Opposite Parties shall pay ₹2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) towards the costs of proceedings incurred by the complainant in pursuing this complaint.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the fulfilment of the above orders, which must be executed within 45 days from the date of receiving this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under point III will result in interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (06.12.2022) until the date of full payment realization.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me, and pronounced in the Open Commission.

Dated this 18^th  day of November 2024

                                                                                  Sd/-

D.B. Binu,  President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N.,  Member

 Forwarded/By Order

                                          Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

• Exhibit A1: Copy of the notice issued to the opposite party, along with the postal receipt.
• Exhibit A2: Copy of the notice sent to the second opposite party via email.
• Exhibit A3: Copy of the first complaint to the first opposite party.
• Exhibit A4: Copy of the bill issued to the complainant by the first opposite party, amounting to Rs. 14,477/-.

Opposite Parties’ Evidence

• Exhibit B1: Copy of the previous billing energy statement, consisting of 2 pages.

Date of Despatch

By Hand      ::

By post        ::

AKR/

Order in CC No. 561/2022

Date:18/11/2024