IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C. No. 01/2014 (Filed on 01.01.2014)
Between:
S. Narayanan,
Madathinal Melethil House,
Ikadu, Kodumon, P.O.,
Pathanamthitta District. … Complainant.
(By Adv. P.R. Shibu)
And:
- Chairman,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaidyithi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
- Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Division, Adoor.
- Asst. Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Sub Division, Adoor. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Annie Mathew)
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of this complaint is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. 25857 and his average monthly consumption was above 100 units. His bi-monthly electricity bill for the last so many months was about Rs. 250/-. While so on 28.10.2013, opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 38,414/- showing the complainant’s consumption as 2506 units. But if the previous reading is subtracted from the present reading the actual consumption will be 5013 units. Because of the said difference the actual bill amount may be the total bill amount shown in the above said bill. Since the previous average bi-monthly consumption was 100 -130 units, there is no chance for a consumption of about 5000 units. The complainant apprehends that such a high reading may be due to the fault of the complainant’s meter. So the complainant immediately met the opposite parties and made a complaint in this regard. Since there was no response from the part of the second and third opposite parties, complainant made written complaints to the Chief Engineer, first opposite party, Chief Minister and Electricity Minister. Even then the complainant’s grievances are not redressed so far. Thereafter due to the non-payment of the bill in question, opposite parties disconnected the complainant’s electricity connection on 20.12.2013. Since the complainant is presently unemployed due to the severe injuries sustained in an accident, the day today affairs of his family including his wife and 2 children studying in Plus One and 10th standard is managing by the complainant’s wife from her wages. So the complainant and his family are not in a position to pay the amount in the impugned bill. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant is put to irreparable injury and loss including mental agony. The said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for setting aside the impugned electricity bill dated 28.10.2013 along with compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost of this proceedings.
3. In this case, opposite parties filed a common version with the following main contentions: Opposite parties admitted the issuance of the impugned bill. According to the opposite parties, the responsibility of the opposite parties ends at the incoming terminal of the cut out installed by the consumer. In this case, due to the complaints of the main switch installed in the premises of the complainant, earthing was caused and as a result of the earthing, the meter recorded the consumption and the loss of electricity by earthing will be treated as consumption. Therefore, the units shown in the meter is the consumption of electricity by the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the electricity charges for the consumption shown in the electricity meter. Since the above said earthing was occurred due to the fault of the complainant and not due to the fault of the opposite parties, the complainant is liable to pay the impugned bill amount. Further, the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties have not done anything in this matter in spite of the complainant’s complaint is false. On getting the complaint, opposite parties inspected the premises of the complainant and found that the main switch of the complainant is defective and they have convinced the same to the complainant and given necessary directions to rectify the complaints in the complainant’s installations. Accordingly, the complainant had carried out necessary repairs and thereafter the complainant’s consumption is shown as normal. The other allegation regarding the calculation error in the impugned bill is also false as the calculations are made at the billing section based on the present consumption seen recorded in the electric meter of the complainant by the Meter Reader and on the basis of his report that the door of the premises was locked at the time of his previous visit for taking the meter reading. The usual practice for issuing bills is that, if the door is locked, the Meter Reader will issue bill on the basis of the average previous consumption and the payment made by the consumer based on the average consumption will be deducted at the time of issuing the subsequent bill. So there is no error or any mistakes in the calculations made in the impugned bill as alleged by the complainant. Thus the amount shown in the impugned bill is correct and the said bill was issued for the actual consumption of the complainant. The excess reading seen in the meter is due to the leaking of electricity consequent to the complaint of the complainant’s main switch and hence opposite parties are not responsible for the said leaking. Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the impugned bill. The disconnection is effected for the non-payment of the bill in time and as such there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of this complaint with their cost.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DWs.1 to 3 and Exts. A1 to A7 series and Exts. B1 to B8. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s case is that he is served with an exorbitant electricity bill for Rs. 38,414/- by the opposite parties. The consumption shown in the said bill is 2506 units whereas the present reading and the previous reading shown in the said bill shows that the complainant’s consumption is 5013 units. Since the complainant is having low connected load and his previous bi-monthly consumption was only in between 100-130 units, the impugned bill is illegal and the complaint is not liable to pay the said bill. Aggrieved by the said bill, complainant filed complaints before the opposite parties as well as the higher authorities for redressing his grievances in connection with the impugned bill. But they have not redressed the complainant’s grievances by saying that the impugned bill is issued for the actual consumption of the complainant seen recorded in the electric meter. They further told the complainant that the said reading was recorded due to the leakage of electricity which caused as a result of the complaints of the main switch of the complainant. According to the complainant, his electrical installations are perfect and the alleged excess reading is due to the fault of the electricity meter. As the complainant is a poor man, he cannot afford the bill amount. So he had not paid the bill amount. Consequent to the non-payment of the bill amount, opposite parties disconnected the complainant’s electric connection. The above said acts of the opposite parties are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, complainant prays for allowing his complaint.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Exts. A1 to A7 series. Exts. A1, A1(a), A5 and A7 series (20 in number) are the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant prior to the impugned bill and subsequent to the impugned bill. Ext. A2 is the impugned bill for Rs. 38,414/- issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A3 is the acknowledgment dated 26.11.2013 issued from the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala in respect of the complainant’s complaint to the Chief Minister in connection with this matter. Ext. A4 is the postal receipt in respect of the complainant’s complaint to the Chairman of Kerala State Electricity Board. Ext. A6 is the copy of a letter dated 03.01.2014 of the Executive Engineer, KSE Board, Electricity Division, Adoor issued to the complainant in respect of his complaint dated 26.11.2013.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the impugned bill is based on the reading seen in the meter of the complainant and on the basis of the written complaint of the complainant regarding the alleged excess reading, opposite parties conducted an inspection and found that the meter is having no defects. At the same time, they found that the main switch of the complainant is defective and because of the said defect, there was earthing and leakage of electricity and the loss in the electricity is due to the said earthing and leakage is recorded in the meter as consumption. The consumption recorded in the meter is due to the defect of the main switch and as per the prevailing rules, the consumption shown in the meter due to the defect of the installation of the consumer is to be suffered by the complainant and the opposite parties are not responsible for the same. On the finding of the defects of the main switch, opposite parties directed the complainant to rectify the defects and accordingly he had replaced the defective main switch. Therefore, the present consumption is seen as normal. So the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount shown in the bill in question. Therefore, they argued that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from their part and hence they are not liable to the complainant in any respect including the disconnection as the disconnection was made for the non-payment of the bill amount in question.
9. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, the third opposite party and a Sub Engineer of the opposite parties filed proof affidavit in lieu of their chief examination. Apart from the above, a Senior Superintendent of the opposite parties is also produced as a witness. Further, opposite parties produced certain documents also. All the 3 officials are examined as DWs.1 to 3 and the documents produced are marked as Exts. B1 to B8. Exts. B1, B2, B3, B3(a), B6 and B7 are the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant prior to the impugned bill and subsequent to the impugned bill, i.e. from 6/2013 to 5/2014. Ext. B4 is the calculation statement prepared by the opposite parties in connection with the impugned bill. Ext. B5 is the copy of the letter dated 21.12.2013 send by the Asst. Engineer to the Executive Engineer showing that the premises of the complainant has been inspected on the basis of the complaint of the complainant to the Executive Engineer. Ext. B8 is the letter dated 15.11.2013 submitted by the Sub Engineer (DW2) to the third opposite party stating that he had inspected the premises and detected the complaints of the main switch and the said fact was convinced to the complainant.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments and on the basis of the available materials on record, the parties have no dispute with regard to the issuance of the impugned bill. But according to the complainant, the impugned bill is based on the reading taken from a faulty meter and hence the impugned bill is illegal and he is not liable to pay the said bill amount. At the same time, opposite parties’ contention is that the electricity meter is not defective and the reading of consumption recorded therein is the consumption of the complainant and the said consumption is not the actual consumption and it is the loss of electricity by earthing due to the fault of the main switch of the complainant and therefore the complainant is liable to pay the impugned bill amount.
11. In view of the contentions of the parties, the only question to be considered is whether the defect is to the electricity meter or to the main switch of the complainant? In this connection, it is pertinent to note that as per Ext. A6, the reply dated 03.01.2014 of the Executive Engineer, the earth leakage is due to the defects in the wiring of the complainant’s premises. At the same time, as per Ext. B5, the report of the third opposite party dated 21.12.2013 addressed to the second opposite party and as per Ext. B8 letter dated 15.11.2013 submitted by the Sub Engineer (DW3) to the third opposite party, the earth leakage was due to the defect of the main switch. As per Ext. A5, the defect is in the wiring whereas the defect is to the main switch as per Ext. B5 and B8. The above said inspection finding of the opposite parties is not corroborative and is inconsistent. So it is clear that the finding of the opposite parties is not specific. Further, opposite parties’ contention is that they have inspected the premises of the complainant and convinced the complainant about the defects in the complainant’s electrical installations and directed the complainant to replace the defective main switch and the complainant had complied their directions. At the same time, complainant’s contention is that his main switch is not defective and he had not replaced his main switch as per their direction and the present main switch in his premises is the same main switch which is using prior to the impugned bill and subsequent to the impugned bill. The said contention of the complainant is not disproved by the opposite parties. At the same time opposite parties are relying on Exts. A6, B5 and B8 for substantiating their contentions. Exts. A6, B5 and B8 are official communications in between the opposite parties and the complainant is a stranger to that exhibits. In the circumstances, the contentions of the opposite parties based on Exts. A6, B5 and B8 is not sustainable. On the other hand, if Exts. A6, B5 and B8 are prepared on the basis of a site mahazar prepared in the presence of the complainant and if the complainant was an attester of the said mahazar much reliance would have been given. Therefore, the contention of the opposite parties that the main switch of the complainant was defective and the consumption shown in the impugned bill is genuine and the complainant is liable to pay the impugned bill is not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned bill is liable to be set aside.
12. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed, thereby Ext. A2 bill for Rs. 38,414/- is hereby set aside. In view of the above finding, order in IA. 01/2014 is made absolute. In the nature and circumstances of the case, no orders for cost and compensation.
13. However, the opposite parties are at liberty to recover the actual electricity charges of the complainant for the Ext. A2 bill period on the basis of the average consumption based on the actual consumption of the complainant immediately prior and subsequent to the impugned bill period.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of June, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : S. Narayanan.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1, A1(a), A5 & A7 series (20 in number) : Electricity bills issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant.
A2 : Impugned bill for Rs. 38,414/- issued by the opposite parties.
A3 : Acknowledgment dated 26.11.2013 issued from the office of the Hon’ble Chief
Minister of Kerala in respect of the complainant’s complaint to the Chief Minister.
A4 : Postal receipt in respect of the complainant’s complaint to the Chairman of
Kerala State Electricity Board.
A6 : Copy of reply dated 03.01.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, KSE Board,
Electricity Division, Adoor to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Thulaseedhara Kurup. G.
DW2 : Beandoz Natha Menon.
DW3 : Rema Bai. K.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1, B2, B3, B3(a), B6 and B7 are the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant.
B4 : Calculation statement prepared by the opposite parties in connection with the
impugned bill.
B5 : Copy of the letter dated 21.12.2013 issued by the Asst. Engineer to the
Executive Engineer.
B8 : Letter dated 15.11.2013 issued by the Sub Engineer to the third opposite party.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) S. Narayanan, Madathinal Melethil House, Ikadu, Kodumon, P.O.,
Pathanamthitta District.
- Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
- Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Division, Adoor.
- Asst. Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Adoor.
- The Stock File.
