BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 133 & 186/2003 Filed on 8/5/2003

Dated: 30..11..2010

Complainants:

1. E. Kassim, T.C. 20/1665, Maji Nivas, Kunjalumoodu, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. S. Majidha Beevi, of ..do.. ..do..

(By Adv. A. Gopakumaran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Major Section, KSEB., Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 012.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, ..do..

3. The Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

This O.P having been heard on 30..09..2010, the Forum on 30..11..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaints are that, complainants are the consumers of opposite parties vide consumer No. PJ-401 under Electrical Major Section, Poojappura, that the connection was for domestic purpose, that current charges were paid by the complainants as and when as per slab cards and spot bills, that monthly consumption in their house was in the range of 125 – 150 units for several years, that on 4/3/2003 a spot bill for an amount of Rs. 31,748/- was served to the complainants, requesting to remit the amount on or before 18/3/2003, that in the said bill the present reading taken on 19/2/2003 is noted as 6046 units and the earlier reading taken on 20/12/2002 is noted as 388 units, that the difference of reading between 388 and 6046 units is taken as the consumption from 20/12/2002 to 19/2/2003 for two months that comes to 5658 units, that the said bill was challenged by filing an O.P No.133/2003 that during the pendency of the said O.P.opposite parties issued next bill dated 19/4/2003 for Rs. 3,796/- to the complainants against which complainants filed O.P. No. 186/2003, that in the second bill the consumption is noted as 914 units, that the Board has introduced spot billing from 1/2001 onwards and the error, if any, in noting the reading can be detected at the time of serving the spot bills itself by the consumers in ordinary meters having direct reading, but in dial type meters the reading noted in the spot bill cannot be verified with the actual reading of meter by an ordinary consumer having direct reading, that on receiving the bill dated 4/3/2003 for Rs. 31,748/- a complaint was filed before 1^st opposite party on 5/3/2003 by the 2^nd complainant, that on the basis of the said complaint 1^st opposite party has installed an electronic meter parallel to the earlier meter to find the pattern of consumption of the house on 7/3/2003 with an initial reading of 6 units, that the newly installed electronic meter recorded the consumption correctly and the reading shown as 200 on 19/4/2003, the date of reading and the consumption is 194 (200 – 6) units for 44 days ie., 4.5 units per day and the complainants are ready to pay the current charge accordingly for 60 days, that the consumption noted as 914 units in the bill dated 19/4/2003 is not the actual consumption for the bi-monthly bill from 19/2/2003 and 19/4/2003, it includes the adjusted units of 650 units of previous bill and the current charge calculated based on it is wrong and erroneous. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to cancel bills dated 4/3/2003 and 19/4/2003 and pay cost to the complainants.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending inter alia that the consumer No. PJ-401 stands effected in favour of Smt. G. Indira under the domestic tariff and as such complainants had no locus standi to institute the complaint, that opposite parties issued a bi-monthly spot bill dated 19/2/2003 for Rs. 31,748/- to the consumer against which complainant has filed O.P.No.133/2003, that after getting a complaint from the complainant a new meter was connected in series with the existing for comparing the daily consumption of the original meter, new meter was installed on 7/3/2003, that while so the next turn of the billing cycle arrived and a spot bill dated 19/4/2003 for Rs. 3,796/- was issued to the consumer, that the said bill was issued for a consumption of 914 units, out of which, first 700 units were measured by the existing meter (from 19/2/2003 to 7/3/2003) and the rest 214 units (from 7/3/2003 to 19/4/2003) by the existing meter and co-related by the new meter which was connected on 7/3/2003, that the opposite parties have every right to realise the charges for 914 units and that opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaints.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether complainant is entitled to get the bills dated 4/3/2003 and 19/4/2003 cancelled?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P7. In rebuttal, opposite party has not filed affidavit or any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iii) : The stand of the opposite parties is that connection was taken in favour of Smt. G. Indira under domestic tariff and complainant has no locus standi to institute the complaints against opposite parties. Ext. P1 is the Order issued by Assistant Executive Engineer showing change of ownership in respect of consumer No.PJA-401 in favour of Shri. N. Mohammed which has been transferred to Smt. Majitha Beevi with effect from 4/2/2005 with all debits and liabilities of the service Consumer No. 401. Ext. P2 series include bills dated 4/3/2003 for Rs. 31,748/- and dated 19/4/2003 for Rs. 3,796/-, other bills dated 18/6/2003, 21/8/2003, 20/10/2003, 20/12/2003, 19/2/2004, 21/4/2004, 20/6/2004 & 17/8/2004. On perusal of the above bills it is seen connection is under tariff 1 except bills dated 4/3/2003 and dated 19/4/2003. All other bill amounts are seen remitted vide various receips attached to the bills. Ext. P3 is a receipt dated 20/12/2002 for Rs. 594/-. Ext. P4 is the copy of the complaint dated 5/3/2003 addressed to Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Poojappura. Ext. P5 is the acknowledgement card. Ext. P6 is the copy of the letter from 2^nd complainant to the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P7 is the acknowledgement card. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents. Both cases were heard jointly vide Order dated 12/2/2009 in IA No. 67/2009. In the complaint, complainant has mentioned the bi-monthly consumption units from 2/2002 to 12/2002. It is seen stated as 283 units on 2/2002, 301 units on 4/2002, 265 units on 6/2002, 337 units on 8/2002, 301 units on 10/2002 and 257 units on 12/2002. The issue herein is regarding the bills dated 4/3/2003 & 19/4/2003. The very case of the complainant is that the monthly consumption of the premises is in the range of 125 - 150 units. As per Ext. P2 bill dated 4/3/2003 the consumption comes to 5658 units, amounting to Rs. 31,748/- for the period from 20/12/2002 to 19/2/2003 and the second bill dated 19/4/2003 wherein the consumption recorded is 914 units amounting to Rs. 3,796/-. The said 2 bills are under challenge. According to complainant the disputed bill was recorded by a conventional dial type meter which itself is of two types – Direct reading and Dial with needle type. The disputed bill is recorded by dial with needle type meter. In the direct type, meter reading can be read directly from the recording system of the meter just like other numbers while in the dial type meter there are several number of dials with needle for each dial, that the qualified and experienced person alone can record the reading correctly and mistakes or errors are common in such meters. The said meter was replaced by opposite parties by another meter on 7/3/2003. It is further submitted by the complainant that on filing of version by opposite parties, the complainant has filed an application to produce the disputed meter before this Forum. Forum directed the opposite parties to produce the same. But the opposite parties filed an affidavit stating that the disputed replaced meter is not traceable thereby complainants' chance to detect the error, if any, in the earlier period was made not possible. It is to be noted that the consumption recorded from the newly installed meter from 7/3/2003 to 19/4/2003 is 194 units. According to complainant 194 units are for 43 days and hence the average consumption per day becomes 4.5 units ( 194/43 = 4.5 units). On the basis of consumption for 60 days can be calculated as 60 x 4.5 = 270 units. Instead of being calculated as 270 units opposite parties has charged for 914 units, the excess consumption of about 644 units are the adjusted units from the previous consumption to reduce the consumption below 6000 units for two months. The reading noted on 19/2/2003 from the disputed meter includes this adjusted units of 644 units from the reading taken on 19/2/2003 and limited to 5658 units to become the consumption below 6000 units. It is further argued by the complainant that in a single phase electric connection the total connected load of a premises is limited below 5000 watts. If the connected load is 5000 watts or above consumer is compelled to take electric connection with three phase supply since the single phase energy meter will not be able to withstand the current of a 5000 watts system load and will be damaged. Therefore, according to complainant the huge consumption of more than 100 units per day is not possible through a single phase energy meter. It is to be noted that the bi-monthly consumption from 19/4/2003 to 18/6/2003 as per bill dated 18/6/2003 in Ext. P2 series is 255 units, that as per bill dated 21/8/2003 the bi-monthly consumption comes to 274 units. As per bill dated 20/10/2003 the bi-monthly consumption comes to 286 units. As per bill dated 20/12/2003 the bi-monthly consumption becomes 301 units. On going through the pattern of consumption after the disputed bills dated 4/3/2003 & 19/4/2003 the average bi-monthly consumption remained below 300 units upto 20/12/2003. Complainant has mentioned the consumption units during the period prior to the date of disputed bills. On going through the bi-monthly consumption from 2/2002 to 12/2002 the average bi-monthly consumption remained below 300 units. Opposite parties never challenged the same in the version. In the light of the pattern of consumption from 2/2002 to 12/2002 and from 18/6/2003 to 20/12/2003 we find the average bi-monthly consumption comes around 300 units. Opposite party has not furnished any material to substantiate their contention in the vesion that complainant has consumed 5658 units from 20/12/2002 to 19/2/2003 and 914 units from 19/2/2003 to 19/4/2003. The onus is on the part of the opposite parties to prove the genuiness of the bill. Opposite parties has not filed affidavit even to substantiate to their version nor has opposite party furnished the disputed meter to ascertain its status. In view of the above we find that the consumption units stated in bills dated 4/3/2003 & 19/4/2003 are erroneous. Hence bill dated 4/3/2003 & 19/4/2003 deserves to be cancelled. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if opposite party is directed to raise the bi-monthly bills on the basis of 279 units, which is average bi-monthly consumption for the period from 19/4/2003 to 20/12/2003 ie., 255 units on 18/6/2003, 274 units on 21/8/2003, 286 units on 20/10/2003 and 301 units on 20/12/2003, total consumption from 19/4/2003 to 20/12/2003 comes to 1116 units for 8 months. Hence monthly average comes to 1116/8 units = 139.5 units bi-monthly consumption is = 139.5 x 2 = 279 units. Justice will be well met if bi-monthly consumption is assessed on the basis of 279 units for the period from 20/12/2002 to 19/4/2003. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising bills dated 4/3/2003 and 19/4/2003.

In the result, complaints are allowed. Bills dated 4/3/2003 and 19/4/2003 are cancelled. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill on the basis of 279 units as bi-monthly consumption for the period from 20/12/2002 to 19/4/2003 after adjusting amounts, if any, already remitted by the complainant during the said period. Opposite parties shall pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation. Both parties shall bear and suffer their cost.

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 30^th day of November, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

ad. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P.No.133 & 186/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainants' witness:

PW1 : E. Kassim

II. Complainants' documents:

P1 : The order issued by Assistant Executive Engineer dated 1/3/2005

P2 : Series are bills

P3 : The receipt dated 20/12/2002 for Rs. 594/-.

P4 : Copy of the complaint dated 5/3/2003 addressed to Assistant Engineer, KSEB., Poojappura.

P5 : The acknowledgement card

P6 : Copy of the letter from 2^nd complainant to the 1^st opposite party.

P7 : The acknowledgement card.

3. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT