BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 501/2003 Filed on 20/12/2003

Dated: 30..09..2009

Complainant:

K. Kamalamma, Geetha Bhavan, Bharathannoor-P.O., Pangode (via), Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

1. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B., Kallara, Pangode.

2. Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

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 02..12..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 30..08..2009, the Forum on 30..09..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant's son was running a textile shop, cassette shop and radio servicing in the building owned by the complainant, that the textile shop was closed by 8/2000, meter reader had issued a bill dated 8/9/2000 showing door locked and thereafter opposite party had continued to issue bill on mere guess work upto 9/1/2002, that on 7/3/2002, meter reader had issued a bill for 30 units since the reading in the prior bill did not tally with the actual meter reading, that complainant was informed by the meter reader that the meter was faulty, that on 8/5/2002 meter reader recorded new reading as 1794 units while the prior reading recorded was 1792 units, and issued a bill for 30 units. Complainant applied for replacement of the faulty meter with a new one, thereupon one Sub Engineer came to her shops and inspected the meter and since the reading shown in the bill was higher than the actual reading, complainant was directed to remit minimum amount till 8/11/2002, and that from 14/1/2003 onwards complainant was directed to remit current charge for 30 units. Since the meter was faulty on inspection, the tariff was changed from VII B to VII A. This continued till 8/7/2003. Opposite party did not replace the faulty meter with a new one. Again on 6/9/2003 meter reader measured meter reading, but issued a bill dated 12/9/2003 showing prior reading 1817 and reading 1829, and consumption 9 units, which was subsequently struck off and written 30 units, since the said amount was not remitted on 30/9/2003, opposite party disconnected the said connection. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to restore the electric connection and to replace the faulty meter with a new one and for refund of excess amount collected by the opposite parties.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, the matter shall be decided by the Electrical Inspector to Government upon the application by the board or the consumers. It is not correct to say that the meter was faulty, that the complainant did not give any application to change the meter. Complainant's door was locked and hence the meter reader could not record the meter reading and accordingly bill for minimum amount was issued. Complainant had not sent any complaint to 1^st opposite party's office. The bills issued to complainant as per Rules for the realisation of the charges of energy consumed by the complainant and she is bound to pay the bill amount failing which the Board is entitled cut off the supply under Rule 32(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. There is no connection whatsoever between the bills issued to the complainant and Mr.Babu's application for connection, that the board is acting only as per rules. 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 restoration of electric connection with installation of new meter?

    

2. Whether opposite parties have collected excess amount from the complainant?

    

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

    

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?

    

4. In support of the complaint, complainant's son has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has been examined and cross examined by the complainant.

5. Points (i) to (iii): It has been the case of the complainant that in complainant's building, her son was running a textile shop, cassette shop and radio servicing, that textile shop was closed by 8/2000, that since the said shops were closed the meter reader issued a bill dated 8/9/2000 showing door locked and thereafter opposite party had continued to issue bill on mere guess work upto 9/1/2002. On 7/3/2002, meter reader issued a bill for 30 units since the reading in the prior bill did not tally with the actual meter reading. It is submitted by the complainant, that on 7/3/2002, complainant was informed by the meter reader that the meter was faulty, that on 8/5/2002 meter reader recorded new reading as 1794 units while the prior reading recorded was 1792 units, and issued a bill for 30 units, and informed her about meter being defective. It has also been the case of the complainant that she had applied for replacement of the faulty meter with a new one, thereupon one Sub Engineer came to her shops and inspected the meter and since the reading shown in the bill was higher than the actual reading, complainant was directed to remit minimum amount till 8/11/2002. From 14/1/2003 onwards complainant was directed to remit current charge for 30 units, since meter was faulty on inspection, the tariff was changed from VII B to VII A. This phenomena continued till 8/7/2003, but opposite party did not replace the faulty meter with a new one. Again on 6/9/2003 meter reader came there and measured meter reading, but issued a bill dated 12/9/2003 showing prior reading 1817 units and reading 1829 units, and consumption 9 units, which subsequently struck off and written 30 units. Since the amount was not remitted on 30/9/2003, opposite party disconnected the said connection. Ext.P1 is the copy of the National Trade Certificate issued to Rajeev. K by National council for Vocational Training. Ext.P2 is the copy of the bill dated 15/5/2000. As per Ext.P2 the reading is 1575 units. Consumption not recorded. Ext.P3 is the copy of the bill 7/3/02. As per Ext.P3 last date of remittance is 21/3/2002, prior reading and reading is 1792. Dates of reading not recorded; and in the consumption column, 'MF' is recorded and Bi-monthly charge mentioned is Rs.141/-. Ext.P4 is the copy of the bill dated 8/5/02; wherein Tariff is VII B, prior reading is 1792 and reading is 1794, dates of reading not recorded. M/F is recorded in consumption column, average consumption stated is 30 units and amount to be remitted is Rs. 83/-. Ext.P5 is the copy of the bill dated 8/7/2002. As per Ext.P5 prior reading is 1794, reading 'DC' and consumption 'NIL'. Bill amount is Rs.80/- (FC Rs.60 + Rent Rs.20/-). Ext.P6 is the bill dated 10/9/2002 wherein meter reading is 1794 consumption is 'average' and bill amount is Rs.83/-. Ext.P7 is the copy of the bill dated 8/11 wherein meter reading is 1794. Consumption not mentioned, and bill amount is Rs.83/-. Ext.P8 is the copy of the bill dated 14/1/2003, Tariff VII B is noted and VII A is also recorded, meter reading is 1794. Average consumption is 30 units bill amount rose to Rs.306/- (FC = Rs.100/-, current charge Rs.186/-, Rent Rs.20/-). Ext.P9 is the copy of the bill dated 10/3/2003 wherein Tariff is VII A, reading is 1794. Average consumption is 30 units and bill amount is Rs.286/-. Ext.P10 is the copy of the bill dated 8/5/2003 wherein average consumption recorded is 30 units. 'DC' is shown in the reading column and amount to be remitted Rs.306/-. Tariff is VII A. Ext.P11 is the copy of bill dated 8/7/2003. As per Ext.P11 reading is 1817, consumption is 30 units and amount to be remitted is Rs.306/-. Ext.P12 is the copy of the bill dated 12/9/2003 wherein Tariff is VII A, reading is 1826, prior reading is 1817. Consumption is 30 units and amount to be remitted is Rs.306/-. On perusal of Exts.P3 to P12 bills, it is seen that initially the tariff was under VII B category upto 9/02 thereafter Tariff changed to VII A category meter fault. (MF) is recorded in Ext.P3 dated 7/3/2002, from there onwards average consumption of 30 units is recorded, meter reading in Ext.P3 is 1792 whereas meter reading in Ext.P4 is 1794, which continued till 8/5/2003, but all along average consumption recorded is 30 units. It is pertinent to point out that opposite party has noted meter being fault in their bills from 7/3/2002 onwards, but no action is seen taken by the opposite parties to replace the faulty meter with a new defectless meter. Section 26 of the Electricity Act requires to maintain the correct meter. It is settled law that the Electricity Board has power to replace the faulty meter by a new meter. It has been the very case of the complainant, that she had already applied for replacement of the faulty meter with a new one in pursuance of bill dated 8/5/2002. Since opposite parties themselves found meter being defective and complainant herself had applied for replacement of the faulty meter with a new one, there arose no dispute regarding the same. Opposite parties did not replace the faulty meter until this Forum directed to do so vide order dated 13/12/2004. There is no case on the part of opposite parties that complainant had started new business in the building. It has been the very case of the complainant that her son had initially conducted textile business, cassette business and radio servicing but textile business was closed by 8/2000. Prior to closing of the textile business and upto 9/02, the bill was issued under tariff VII B, thereafter the tariff is seen changed to VII A, the reason for change of tariff explained by the opposite parties is unfounded. In his chief examination 1^st opposite party has deposed that for multi purpose tariff will come under VII A, but for single phase tariff will be under VII B. Further opposite party has deposed that meter was properly working. The deposition of 1^st opposite party is contradictory to the contents in Exts.P3 to P12 that meter being defective. Further, 1^st opposite party has deposed that if door is locked, bill will be issued on the basis of average consumption. It is further deposed by 1^st opposite party that the connection was disconnected since complainant failed to pay the bill dated 9/03. Opposite parties have no case that complainant had started fresh business from 7/02 onwards. Complainant's case is that her son's textile business was closed by 8/2000. The onus of proving tariff change from VII B to VII A would rest on opposite parties. Opposite parties did not challenge the affidavit filed by the complainant nor did opposite parties cross examine the complainant to prove otherwise. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of available evidence on records we are of the opinion that meter remained faulty from 7/3/2002 (From Ext P3 bill dated 7/3/2002) and the same was not replaced by the opposite parties though the Act mandates that opposite parties are bound to replace th same, and change of tariff from VII B to VII A during the said period from 14/1/2003 (bill dated 14/1/2003) found devoid of bonafides. The action of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.

In the result, the interim order dated 13/12/2004 to reconnect the connection and to replace the faulty meter with a defect free meter is made absolute. Opposite parties are directed to collect current charge under VII B category from 14/1/2003 onwards till the date of reconnection, and excess amounts if any collected from the complainant under VII A shall be adjusted in the future bills. Opposite parties are at liberty to change tariff from the date of reconnection if the situation permits to do so in accordance with law. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstance of the case. Both parties are left to bear and suffer their own costs.

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 September, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P. No. 501/2003

I. Complainant's witness: Nil

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Photocopy of National Trade Certificate

P2 : Photocopy of demand and disconnection notice No.584331 dated 15/5/00.

P3 : “ F – 130752 dated 7/3/2002

P4 : “ C – 854364 dated 8/5/2002

P5 : “ S – 417159 dated 8/7/2002.

P6 : “ F – 540942 dated 10/9/2002

P7 : “ G.917719 dated 8/11/2002

P8 : “ I 20 7A dated 14/1/2003

P9 : “ F No.25685 dated 10/3/2003

P10 : “ F 23341 dated 8/5/2003

P11 : “ V.0025 dated 8/7/2003

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : Ayoob

IV. Opposite parties' Documents: NIL

PRESIDENT.