Between:

Benson George Varghese,

Managing Director,

Bensoft Systems Pvt. Ltd.,

Pathanamthitta, Kerala.

(ByAdv. Thomas. T. Mathew)                                    .....     Complainant.

And:

1.     The Asst.Engineer,

Electrical Section,

Pathanamthitta.

2.     The Secretary,

KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram.                                     .....     Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member):

                        The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:  The complainant is a consumer of opposite party vide Con.No.13395.  The complainant has paid all the regular bills issued by the opposite parties without any default.  The average meter reading of 7 months was 642 units.  But from February 2009 onwards meter reading shoot up.  Meter reading of February was 1430, 1549 unit on March and 1804 unit on April.  On March 13^th the complainant made a complaint before the 1^st opposite party about the hike of meter reading and to verify the same.  But there was no response from 1^st opposite party.  Then he made a complaint to the Asst. Engineer on 22.4.09 about the erroneous meter reading.  On 24.4.09 Pathanamthitta squad inspect the premises and found that the meter was faulty and replaced the faulty meter and fixed new one on 27.4.09.  The meter reading from 27.4.09 to 27.5.09 was only 627 units.  It is clear that the excess reading due to the faulty meter.  So the opposite parties are liable to pay the excess amount remitted by the complainant.  The complainant’s average electricity bill for four months was ` 5,815 until January.  Average bill of February to May 2009 was ` 10,140.  On 28.4.09 the 1^st opposite party issued a bill for an amount of ` 16,896 as penalty for using 2 KW of unauthorised load.  This bill was issued without any proper investigation.  On 23.5.09 the 1^st opposite party issued the final bill for the same amount and demanded to remit the amount on or before 14.6.09 otherwise the electric connection will be disconnected.  The acts of opposite parties amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby the complainant caused damages and losses and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the same.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to quash the bill issued on 23.5.09 and declare the bill null and void and directing the opposite parties to repay the excess amount collected from the complainant, directing the opposite parties to not disconnect the electric connection of the complainant till the disposal of the case and for paying compensation and cost.  The complainant prays for granting the relief.

                   3. The Asst. Executive Engineer of Electrical Sub Division, Pathanamthitta has filed a version on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party with the following contentions.  This opposite parties have admitted the consumer connection availed to the complainant.  The complainant is not a consumer he is the Proprietor of a commercial firm named as Bensoft System Pvt. Ltd.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.  On verifying the meter reading from May 2005, it is seen that the complainant’s consumption reached to 1242 units.  During September 2005, 900 units, during Nov. 2005, 1022 units, during February 2006, 900 units, during April 2006 1056 units............during May 2008, 129 units during September 2008, 941 units, during January 2009, 1430 units and during April 2009 1479 units.  The meter reading of the complainant’s connection shows that the meter reading shoot up was not due to the meter fault.  The consumption had crossed 900 units on twelve months during the last four years whereas his normal consumption varied from 600 to 900 units.

                   4. The complainant filed a complaint before the 1^st opposite party on 22.4.09 regarding the excess recording of consumption of his energy meter.  On 24.4.09 the 1^st opposite party inspected the premises and tested the energy meter and found that it was in working condition and the meter records the actual consumption.  Since the complainant challenged the accuracy of meter the old meter was dismantled and a new meter was iinstalled on 27.4.09.  The old meter was sent to the meter testing laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram after remitting the requisite fee by the complainant.  The site inspection conducted by the opposite parties revealed that the complainant was using unauthorised connected load of 1550 watts against the sanctioned load of 14000 watts.

                          5. The amount demanded vide bill dated 28.4.09 is the penal charges for the unauthorised connected load detected at the complainant’s premises on 24.4.09.  The 1^st opposite party had issued a copy of the site mahazar on the spot to the complainant.  The provisional bill, calculation statement and notice was served to the complainant on 28.4.09 and on 4.5.09 the complainant had filed an objection to the provisional bill.  A hearing based upon the said objection was conducted on 16.5.09 by 1^st opposite party.  Based upon the deliberations at the hearing the assessing officer upheld the penalisation and a final bill was issued to the complainant.  The inspection and penalisation were done as per section 126(1), (2) (5) & (6) of Electricity Act 2003.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.  The excess amount if any paid by the complainant can be calculated only after the receipt of the meter test report.  Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                   6. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint?

(3)   Reliefs & Costs?

           7. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A17 for the complainant and for the opposite parties, Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta has adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 to B6 were marked.  After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.

          8. Complainant’s case is that he is the consumer of the opposite party and he used to pay the regular bills issued by the opposite parties.  On seeing the excess meter reading of the complainant’s connection the complainant filed a complaint before the 1^st opposite party and the section squad inspected the meter and found that the meter was faulty and it was replaced on 27.4.09.  After the inspection the 1^st opposite party issued a bill for an amount of ` 16,896 on 28.4.09 as a penal charge for the unauthorised connected load.  The meter reading after 27.4.07, i.e. after replacing the new meter is very less, it shows that the excess reading is due to the faulty meter.  On 23.5.09 the opposite parties have issued a final bill and demanded to pay the bill amount on or before 14.6.09 otherwise the electric connection will be disconnected.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for cancellation of additional bill issued by the opposite parties on 23.5.09 and 28.4.09.

          9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A17 marked.  Ext.A1 is the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant on 22.4.09 before the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A2 to A16 are the current bills issued by the opposite parties during the year 2008 and 2009.  Ext.A17 is the copy of final bill issued by the opposite parties on 23.5.09 for an amount of ` 16,896.  The opposite parties have cross-examined PW1.

          10. The opposite parties contended that the sanctioned load at the complainant’s premises was 14000 watts.  During the inspection an unauthorised load of 1550 watts was connected by the complainant.  The amount demanded as per the additional bill is the penal charges for the unauthorised connected load detected at the complainant’s premises on 24.4.09 as per Sec.126 of Electricity Act 2003.  At the time of inspection energy meter was tested at site and found that the energy meter is in working condition and the meter records the actual consumption.  The excess amount if any paid by the complainant can be calculated only after the receipt of the test report.

                   11. In order to prove the contentions of opposite party, the Sub Engineer, KSEB adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 to B6 were marked.  Ext.B1 is the site mahazar prepared by the 1^st opposite party on 24.4.09 after inspecting the complainant’s premises.  Ext.B2 is the provisional bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 28.4.09.  Ext.B3 and B4 are the receipts for the payment of ` 200 and ` 100 on 27.4.09 as the testing fee of the meter and transporting charges.  Ext.B5 is the meter charging register dated 29.4.09.  Ext.B6 is the copy of letter for sending the energy meter for testing sent by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant’s counsel has cross-examined DW1.

                   12. On going through the evidences in this case Ext.A2 to A16 bills show that during the year 2008 and 2009 the current consumption of the complainant varies from 500 units to 900 units.  The dispute is regarding the final (Ext.A17) for ` 16,896 issued by the opposite parties on 23.5.09.  According to the complainant, the excess meter reading was due to the fault of the meter and he had remitted more amount than his actual consumption and he is entitled to get back the excess amount remitted to the opposite parties.  But opposite parties contended that the meter is in working condition and the reading shown the actual consumption.  According to the opposite parties, Ext.A17 bill was issued on the basis of the site inspection conducted by the 1^st opposite party at the complainant’s premises.  The complainant’s sanctioned connected load is 14000 watts.  During the inspection it was detected that the complainant had connected a total load of 15550 watts in his premises against the sanctioned connected load.  At the time of inspection, Ext.B1 mahazar was prepared by the 1^st opposite party in the presence of the complainant and it was signed by the complainant.  It is pertinent to note that at the time of putting his signature in Ext.B1, the complainant has not raised any objection to this mahazar.  Ext.B1 shows that the actual connected load at the time of inspection was 15550 watts.  And on the basis of Ext.B1, the 1^st opposite party issued the provisional bill and after hearing the complainant’s they have issued final bill, Ext.A17.  Impugned bill is based on an inspection and the detection of unauthorised connected load and it is not an additional bill for excess consumption.  Moreover, the complainant had no case against the site mahazar and hence the complainant’s prayer for quashing Ext.A17 bill is not allowable.  In the circumstances, the complainant is liable to pay the charges of unauthorised additional connected load as per Ext.A17 bill.

                   13. Considering the (b) prayer in the complaint, the complainant’s alleged faulty meter was sent to the meter testing lab for testing the accuracy.  The excess amount if any collected from the complainant by opposite parties based on the reading in the alleged faulty meter can be ascertained only after getting the test report.  The test report has not been produced by the parties.  In the circumstances without getting the meter test report of the complainant’s old energy meter the complainant is not entitled to get an amount from the opposite parties.  The amount demanded by the opposite parties vide Ext.A17 bill is the penal charges for the unauthorised connected load detected at the complainant’s premises.  In the circumstances, we could not find any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the complaint.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                   14. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of December, 2010.                                                                                              

   (Sd/-)

                                                                                           C. Lathika Bhai,

                                                                                                (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                 :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                 :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  Benison George Varghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Photocopy of the complaint dated 22.4.09 filed by the complainant 

             to the 1^st opposite party. 

A2 to A16 :  Current bills issued by the opposite parties during the year  

                        2008 and 2009. 

A17   :  Photocopy of final bill dated 23.5.09 for ` 16,896 issued by the 

             opposite parties to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 :  Saji. M. Thankachan

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :  Site mahazar prepared by the 1^st opposite party on 24.4.09.

B2     :  Provisional bill dated 28.4.09 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the 

              complainant. 

B3     :  Photocopy of the receipt dated 27.4.09 for ` 100.

B4     : Photocopy of  the receipt dated 27.4.09 for ` 200.

B5     :  Photocopy of the meter charging register. 

B6     :  Photocopy of letter dated 24.4.09 sent by the 1^st opposite party to 

              Executive Engineer, TML Division, Thirumala.

                                                                                                (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Benson George Varghese,  Managing Director,

                       Bensoft Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pathanamthitta, Kerala.

(2) The Asst.Engineer, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta.

(3) The Secretary, KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram.

(4)  The Stock File.