ORDER<br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and his consumer number is 5431. The complainant is residing alone at his house after the death of his wife on 4.6.2002. The opposite parties issued electricity bills for Rs.192/- each for the months of June 2002 to September 2002 and Rs.242/- for December and he paid the said bills. Thereafter also he is getting excess bills. Since he is residing alone, he is not using fan, fridge etc. and he had not consumed electricity for the above said bills and his complaints regarding the said excess bills has not been settled by the opposite parties. The complainant’s electricity meter was changed thrice saying that the meter was running slowly. Due to the installation of the meters having no quality by the opposite parties at the complainant’s residence, complainant had sustained loss of money, and other sufferings and the opposite parties are responsible for it. Issuing of excess electricity bill, not settling the complaints regarding the excess bill etc.are deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to compensate for the loss and damages sustained by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint for getting an amount of Rs.1 lakh for the mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for physical and monetary loss and for realising Rs.398/- the excess amount collected by the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> 3. The third opposite party filed a common version for all the opposite parties with the following main contentions: They denied that they have not issued any excess bills. As per the meter reading register, the complainant’s consumption during the bill period of 6.2.2002 was 140 units and the bill amount was Rs.187/-. During 8/02, the meter was found faulty, so they issued bill for Rs.192/- on the basis of the previous bill amount. During 10/02 also the meter was faulty, the bill for Rs.192/- was issued on the basis of the previous bills. During 12/02 also the bill was issued on the basis of the previous bills as the meter was faulty. Thereafter, the meter was changed and the consumption for 2/03 recorded as 16 units and issued a bill for Rs.85/-. The meter was again found faulty and it was changed on 25.3.2003 and a bill for Rs.85/- was issued for 4/03. During 6/03, the reading was 57 units and a bill for Rs.91/- was issued. During 8/03, a bill for Rs.79/- was issued. According to the opposite parties, bills from 6/02 to 12/02 were prepared on the basis of the average consumption, as the meter was faulty during these periods. The fault noted in the meter was that the meter was running slowly. Therefore, they have not charged any excess bill amount or there is no deficiency of service from their part. So the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite parties. Hence they pray for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:<br /> <br /> (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?<br /> (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint?<br /> (3) Reliefs and Costs?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant and one witness who were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and the documents produced by PW1 which are marked as Exts.A1 to A4(f) on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainants. PWs.1 and 2 were not cross examined by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence in their favour. After the closure of the evidence, both sides heard. <br /> <br /> 6. Points 1 to 3: The complainant’s main allegations against the opposite parties is that the opposite parties have issued excess electricity bills during the period from 6/02 to 12/02. The bills before and after these periods are less than Rs.90/-. The bill for 6/02 is Rs.187/-. According to the complainant, during that period, his wife was in a sinking stage and she died and because of the said reason during that period, he had consumed more electricity in connection with the treatment of his wife etc. So the complainant had no dispute regarding the bill for the month of 6/02. During 8/02, the meter reader found the complainant’s consumption very low. So he presumed that the meter was faulty and the opposite parties issued bill for Rs.192/- on the basis of the previous consumption, as the meter was faulty. This continued upto 10/02 and the faulty meter was changed during 2/03 bill period. Then again the consumption was found low and assuming that the meter was faulty, the opposite parties again changed the meter. During 2/03 onwards, they have issued normal bills. According to the opposite parties, they have issued bills from 8/02 to 12/02 on the basis of previous months consumption, as the meter was not working properly. The opposite parties found the fault of the meter as slow running. According to the opposite parties, slow running meter are faulty meters having manufacturing defects. Such meters are unfit for measuring the consumption of electrical energy. When the defects were brought to the notice, earnest efforts had been taken to replace such meters. As per the Electricity Rules, the opposite parties are entitled to issue bills on the basis of the average consumption for the previous months in case of faulty meters. <br /> <br /> 7. Exts.A1 to A3 were the representations made by the complainant before the opposite parties with regard to the excess bill amount and Exts.A4 to A4(f) were electricity bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 8. On a perusal of the available materials on record, it is found that the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant from 8/02 to 12/02 were on the basis of the assumption that the complainant’s meter was faulty. But the electricity bills before and after these periods were normal. The low consumption seen in the meters alone is not a reason to come to the conclusion that the meter is faulty. The complainant herein clearly stated that he is residing alone and he is not using any energy consuming equipments like fan, fridge etc. in his house after the death of his wife. So the consumption seen may be the actual consumption. But the opposite parties have not taken any steps to find out whether the meters are faulty or not. The simply came to the conclusion that the meter was faulty since the consumption seen in the meter is very low. The opposite parties have not proved that the meters are faulty by supporting material evidence. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the meters were not faulty and the consumption recorded in the meters are actual. This is also clear from the bills issued after 4/03. <br /> <br /> 9. In this case in our opinion, the opposite parties have not applied their mind while considering in the complainant’s written complaint to the opposite parties and have committed deficiency of service. In the circumstances, the bills from 8/02 to 12/02 are not proper and the complainant is entitled to get the excess amount collected by the opposite parties, which we calculated as Rs.356/- (ie. 192+192+242 = 626/-) – (90+90+90=270) 626-270= 356. Therefore, the complaint is allowable partly. The complainant is a senior citizen. So we have no hesitation to say that the actions of the opposite parties caused sufferings to the complainant. So he is entitled to get a reasonable compensation also which is limited to Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> 10. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.356/- (Rupees Three hundred and fifty six only) the excess amount collected by the opposite parties with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till this date with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) and cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only). The opposite parties are also directed to adjust the said amounts to the complainant’s future electricity bills. The said adjustment shall start from the next bill from the date of receipt of this order to the succeeding bills.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 9th day of September, 2008.<br /> <br /> (Sd/-)<br /> Jacob Stephen,<br /> (President)<br /> Smt.C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Appendix:<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant:<br /> PW1 : Chandy Varughese.<br /> PW2 : V.V. Sunilkumar.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Photocopy of the letter dated 4.10.2002 sent by the complainant to the third <br /> opposite party.<br /> A2 : Photocopy of the letter dated 14.2.2003 sent by the complainant to the third <br /> opposite party.<br /> A3 : Photocopy of the petition dated 12.8.2003 sent by the complaint to the third <br /> opposite party.<br /> A4 : Electricity bill dated 1.4.2002 for Rs.86/- issued by the opposite parties to the <br /> complaint.<br /> A4(a) : Electricity bill dated 3.10.2002 for Rs.192/- issued by the opposite parties to <br /> the complaint.<br /> A4(b) : Electricity bill dated 3.12.2002 for Rs.88/- issued by the opposite parties to <br /> the complaint.<br /> A4(c) : Electricity bill dated 1.2.2003 for Rs.79/- issued by the opposite parties to the <br /> complaint.<br /> A4(d) : Electricity bill dated 1.2.2003 for Rs.85/- issued by the opposite parties to the <br /> complaint.<br /> A4(e) : Electricity bill dated 2.8.2003 for Rs.79/- issued by the opposite parties to the <br /> complaint.<br /> A4(f) : Additional bill for the months of 4/03 and 8/03 for Rs.387/- issued by the <br /> opposite parties to the complainant.<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.<br /> <br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.<br />