DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008<br /> <br /> Present: Smt.Seena.H, President<br /> Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member<br /> Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member<br /> <br /> C.C.No.33/2008<br /> <br /> Radha Subramanian,<br /> Mathrubhavan House,<br /> Vadakkanthara.P.O,<br /> Near Devi Nursing Home,<br /> Palakkad. - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> The Assistant Executive Engineer,<br /> Kerala State Electricity Board,<br /> Olavakkode Division,<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Smt.Seena.H, President<br /> <br /> <br /> The brief of the complaint is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is the owner of a two storied house of which the upper portion is given for rent. He is the consumer of electricity through electricity connection installed by the opposite party vide Consumer No.12259. According to the complainant, the tenant vacated the house in the month of August, 2007. As the tenant was using A/c and other equipments, the monthly electricity bill issued was around Rs.1,600/-. According to the complainant the amount charged in the two electricity bills issued after the tenant vacated was excess. The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of taking reading for issuance of the bills, the metre was defective. The opposite party took the average consumption of the last three bimonthly bills as per the law and issued bills for the successive months. According to the complainant that is high because the average taken was for the period when electricity was extensively used by the tenant. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opposite party filed version stating the following contention that the complainant herein has two service connections under domestic tariff at both floors of the house under <br /> <br /> Electrical Section, Kalpathy. Both floors are occupied and is extensively used. While taking metre reading at the Consumer No.12259 on 3/12/2007, Meter Reader found that metre was not working. So he took the average consumption of the last three bimonthly bills as per the terms and conditions of supply clause 42(3). Since the meter was faulty, bimonthly bill is charged for the average consumption calculated during the months of December 2007 and February 2008. The complainant cleared the bills served without raising any dispute. The opposite party denied the statement that the complainant told the Meter Reader and the Assistant Executive Engineer that the tenant has vacated the first floor and that there is no usage of electricity. The opposite party has changed the meter on 05/12/08 before the lodging of this complaint. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.<br /> <br /> The evidence adduced by the complainant are the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 series document. On the side of the opposite party proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B4 document were filed.<br /> <br /> The issues for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?<br /> <br /> Issue 1 & 2:<br /> It is the say of the complainant that the two bills issued by the opposite party for the months of December 2007 and February 2008 is excess. The meter was defective at the time of meter reading as admitted by the opposite party. The opposite party took the average consumption of the last three bimonthly bills as per law. This is evident from Ext.B1 the attested copy of the relevant page of spot billers dairy. As per the complainant the average consumption was calculated for the period when electricity was extensively used by the tenant. The tenant has vacated the house in the month of August 2007. No supporting document was produced by the complainant in this regard. Going through the calculation of average consumption as stated in the affidavit of opposite party which as follows:<br /> 06/07 604 units<br /> 08/07 481 units<br /> 10/07 214 units<br /> average = 604+481+214 = 1299/3 = 433 units<br /> <br /> We find that there is considerable reduction in the consumption from the month of June to October. Complainant also states that the tenant has vacated in the month of August 2007. Reading together we find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the complainant.<br /> <br /> In view of the aforesaid discussion we hold the view that the disputed bills are excessive.<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party to take the average of the energy of the three months succeeding the change of meter and then to determine the previous charges. The disputed bills stands canceled. The amount if any in excess shall be adjusted towards the future bills. An amount of RS.1,000/- shall be paid as cost. The order to be complied within one month from the date of communication of order.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of October, 2008 <br /> <br /> Seena.H <br /> President<br /> <br /> Preetha.G.Nair<br /> Member<br /> <br /> Bhanumathi.A.K<br /> Member<br /> Appendix<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant <br /> Ext.A1 Series (8 in Nos.) – Payment receipts <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party <br /> Ext.B1 – Attested copy of the relevant page of Spot Biller's Diary<br /> Ext.B2 – Attested copy of finalized invoice for the month of 10/2007 <br /> Ext.B3 - Attested copy of finalized invoice for the month of 12/2007 <br /> Ext.B4- Attested copy of finalized invoice for the month of 02/2008<br /> Costs (Allowed)<br /> Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost.