Complainant continuously absent even after issuing notice. Hence complaint dismissed for non-prosecution.

 

Dated this 7^th day of February, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant challenges the additional bill for Rs.16,120/- dated, 28-02-2001 for the period 1/99 to 12/2000. It is stated that the meter was faulty and that opposite party changed the meter on 24-3-2001. It is averred that opposite party did not take proper meter readings and did not take steps to assess the consumption within six months. That later opposite party issued spot bill for Rs.3,114/- and also collected excess of Rs.597/- which is illegal. That complainant is not liable to pay the additional bill and hence this complaint seeking to cancel the bill, to refund Rs.3,114/- with interest, and other ancillary reliefs.

2. First opposite party filed version onbehalf of himself and second opposite party. It is stated that the additional bill for Rs.16,120/- was issued for the excess consumption of energy during the period 1/99 to 12/2000. That complainant was paying charges only under provisional invoice card for 140 units/month during this period. As per the meter readings noted on 1/99 and 12/2000 the monthly consumption for the relevant period is 379 units. Therefore the additional bill was issued for the charges of excess consumption after deducting the charges already paid under provisional invoice card. Detailed calculation is given in the version. It is submitted that the consumer increased his connected load to 4385 watts with effect from 23-10-1998. His consumption also has increased thereafter. That at the time of sanctioning increased load the single phase connection was converted to a three phase connection on request of the consumer which was necessary to meet the additional load. On such conversion three single phase meters were provided. Thereafter readings were taken on 1/99, 12/2000, 8/12/2001 and 23/3/2001. On receiving complaint that meter is faulty, the three single phase meters were replaced by a three phase new electronic meter on 24-3-2001. Only one of the three meters were faulty. That the meter was faulty only after 23-3-2001 and that the meter was not faulty during the relevant period for which bill was issued. That the bills issued are legal and proper. Complainant is liable to pay the same. That an amount of Rs.597/- was collected in excess in the spot bill of 07-2-2001 for Rs.3,441/- which was adjusted towards the next spot bill. That there is no deficiency in service.

3. This case was initially disposed off by my predecessor on 07-11-2003. Against this order opposite parties preferred appeal No.1016/2003. As per judgment in the said appeal dated, 05-8-2008 the matter was remanded to the Forum for fresh disposal. Notice was issued to both sides on 19-11-2008. But the complainant was absent and the case was dismissed for default on 07-2-2009. Thereafter as per orders in I.A.223/09 filed by complainant the case was restored and posted to 25-6-2009.

4. Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by complainant. No documents marked for him. Opposite party filed counter affidavit Exts.B1 and B2 marked for opposite party.

5. Complainant challenges the additional bill for Rs.16,120/- dated, 28-02-2001 which according to him was served only on 24-3-2001. He has not produced the bill. Much beating about the bush has been attempted by the complainant in the complaint, affidavit and in the submissions made on his behalf to substantiate that the meter was faulty during relevant period for which the additional bill is issued. It is contended by the complainant that meter was faulty during the period 1/99 to 24-3-2001 and that the meter was changed without complying Sec.26(6). That in any case the bill can be issued only for 6 months under Sec.31(c). Opposite party has disputed these contentions and affirms that the meter was not faulty during 1/99 to 12/2000, the period for which the bill was issued. It is the case of opposite party that the meter was faulty only on 24-3-2001 and the meter was changed on 24-3-2001 itself. Opposite party relied upon Ext.B1 meter reading register. It is seen in Ext.B1 that meter readings are taken on 1/99, 12/2000, 12/2001 and 3/2001. Complainant has not challenged these readings by cross examining opposite party. Further there is no documentary evidence to show that he complained the meter to be faulty during the period 1/99 to 12/2000.

6. Moreover, opposite party has put forward reliable explanation for the basis of issuing the additional bill which is supported by ext.Ext.B1 meter reading register. According to opposite party the complainant was paying monthly charges under the Provisional Invoice card (PIC) in which he was assessed for 140 units only. With effect from 23-10-1998 complainant increased his connected load to 4385 watts. While giving sanction for this increased load the single phase connection was converted to three phase connection in order to meet the additional load. Three single phase meters were installed for this three phase connection. Readings were taken on 1/99, 12/2000, 12/2001 and 23-3-2001. On 24-3-32001 complaint was received that meter was faulty and it was found by opposite party that one of the single phase meters was stuck. All the three meters were then replaced with a new electronic meter. It is submitted by opposite party that during the period 1/99 to 12/2000 the meter was not faulty. On perusing the evidence and records it is seen that the average consumption for the relevant period (1/99 to 12/2000 = 23 months) as per readings of 1/99 and 12/2000 is 8719 units. After deducting the units billed and collected by PIC (ie., 140 units x 23 months = 3220 units) the balance is the excess consumption availed by complainant during the 23 months which is 5499 units. That additional bill for Rs.16,120/- was issued for these units as per tariff.

7. While Provisional Invoice card system existed monthly readings were not taken. But readings were taken at intervals and the consumers were charged for the excess consumption if any over and above the monthly Provisional Invoice Card charges. Thus the additional bill for Rs.16,120/- is issued by opposite party for the excess consumption over and above the charges collected under Provisional Invoice card. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the meter was faulty during 1/99 to 12/2000. The meter was noted to be faulty only on 24-3-2001 and therefore does not vitiate the validity of the bill. Sec.26(6) or Sec.31(c) does not have any application to the additional bill issued in this case. It is not in dispute that complainant increased his connected load with effect from 23-10-1998. He does not dispute that he was paying only for 140 units per month under Provisional Invoice card during the period 1/99 to 12/2000. This provisional invoice card assessing monthly charges was admittedly issued to complainant prior to increase of his connected load. So the excess units consumed by him during the relevant period has to be paid by him. We therefore hold that the additional bill for Rs.16,120/- issued by opposite party is legal and proper. Complainant is liable to pay the same.

8. It is further contended by complainant that opposite party collected Rs.597/- in excess in the spot bill for Rs.3,114/-. He has not challenged the bill amount alleging any specific grounds but is aggrieved by the collection of excess of Rs.597/-. Opposite party admits collection of excess but has stated that the amount was adjusted to the next spot bill. Opposite party has not produced any document to show such adjustment. It is not stated in the affidavit by opposite party as to what was the amount of the next spot bill and in what manner the adjustment was made. Hence the contention that the amount has been adjusted is untenable. Complainant is entitled to refund of this excess amount.

9. Further it is seen that the complainant has been burdened with an additional bill for a period of 23 months. If opposite party had taken readings at least once in six months the consumer would not be burdened with such huge amount. Failure to take regular meter readings is definitely deficiency. For the failure to take proper and regular meter readings the consumer cannot be harassed by issuing bills for the consumption of several months together. We therefore are of the view, that opposite party cannot charge any surcharge or interest upon the bill amount. So the amount of Rs.16,120/- only can be collected by opposite party. We hold that waiving of the surcharge would be adequate relief to the complainant.

10. In the result we partly allow the complaint and order the following:-

(i) Complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.16,120/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand one hundred and twenty only) as per the additional bill.

(ii) Opposite party is directed to waive the surcharges upon the above amount.

(iii) Opposite party is ordered to refund Rs.597/- (Rupees Five hundred and ninety seven only) which shall be adjusted to the above amount payable by complainant.

(iv) We make no order as to costs.

(v) The time fixed for complying this order is two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 10th day of July, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2

Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the meter reading register relating to consumer No.2333

with effect from 2/93 to 23-3-2001.

Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the meter reading register relating to consumer No.2333

with effect from 12/2000 to 6/03.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER