O R D E R.
By Smt. Bindu. R, President:
The Complaint is filed by Smt. Ajithamani, W/o.K.N. Sathees, Kandamkulathil Veedu, Mythani, Kalpetta against the Executive Engineer, KSEB, Kalpetta Division and another alleging deficiency of Service and unfair trade Practice from the side of the Opposite Parties.
2. Complainant states that the Complainant had obtained an electric connection during February 2019 as per Consumer No.1165868039224 for the purpose of construction of a residential building. It is stated by the Complainant that she had received a bill for using 118 units of electricity during the month of March 2020 which was paid by the Complainant. The Complainant states that on 24.06.2020, it was informed from KSEB office that during covid period, the power consumption is 14780 units and hence an amount of Rs.1,47,479/- is to be paid as electricity charges and aggrieved by this the Complainant submitted a petition before the Assistant Engineer on 25.06.2020 and before the Executive Engineer on 29.07.2020. The Complainant states that during lock down period, no construction work was done in the site and therefore electricity was not used during the said period. The Complainant states that the wiring and installation were done strictly in accordance with the directions of the KSEB including ELCB to avoid earth leak and are still in working condition without any fail. Hence the Complainant states that there may be defects in the meter which showed a wrong reading during that period. The Complainant states that as per direction of the Executive Engineer, the meter was taken for testing and the copy of downloaded data has been received and as per the report no physical tampering was defected. A magnetic tamper data is enclosed along with the report and when enquired about the same with the Assistant Engineer, it was informed that if there exists any magnetic field near the meter, it may show the reading 30 times higher than the original reading. The Complainant received a notice showing disconnection on 21.12.2020 if the arrears of Rs.1,55,556/- is not paid within 15 days and hence the Complainant approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties praying for an order to exempt the Complainant from remitting the amount which is wrongly inflicted upon the Complainant.
3. Upon notice the Opposite Parties entered into appearance but not filed version in time and hence set exparte on 16.03.2022. Thereafter IA 111/2022 is seen filed and allowed and the exparte order was set aside and the Opposite Parties filed their version denying the allegations in the complaint showing the detailed consumption history for 12 months. In the version it is contented that during 5/2020 the meter recorded a consumption of 14780 units and the automated billing software generated the bill for the said consumption. It is stated in the version that on the basis of the complaint dated 25.06.2020 and on remittance of Rs.131/- towards testing fee for the inspection of the meter, a spot inspection of the energy meter and the premises was conducted by the officials but could not find any malfunctioning or anything suspicious. Later, the energy meter was subjected to thorough inspection by installing a standard check meter which was connected parallel to the existing energy meter. The readings and consumption details recorded by both the meters are stated as 5 units in both existing meter and check meter and hence the Opposite Parties contented that the meter installed in the premises was a healthy one. It is stated by the Opposite Parties that, later the impugned meter was removed from the premises and sent for testing at an NABL accredited laboratory at TMR Division Kannur of the Opposite Party and the report shows that the meter was functioning properly without any error and the report reveals that there were 13 episodes of magnetic tampering during the period from 29.06.2020 to 21.08.2020 with varying duration. According to the Opposite Parties the revelations about magnetic tampering, points the finger at the petitioner, under whose custody the energy meter is being kept. It is contented by the Opposite Party that as per the rules and regulations governed under the Electricity Act, the consumer shall be responsible for safe custody of meter and accessories, if the same is installed within the premises of the consumer and when ever the meter confronts an external attempt for tampering, if would be recorded in the internal memory of the meter and hence according to the Opposite Parties the bill generated is correct and at same time the Opposite Parties agrees for another test by any other accredited agencies including Central Power Research, Bangalore. It is also contented that in the event of an adverse report on the functioning of meter the Opposite Parties are ready to review the bill.
4. The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.A1 to A4 from the side of the Complainant and Exts.B1 and B2 from the side of the Opposite Parties.
5. The following points are to be considered by the Commission in this case.
- Whether the Complainant has established his case on merits and whether
the Complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
- Compensation and costs to be awarded in this case.
6. The Commission has made a thorough probe in to the contents of the case on
the basis of evidence and documents produced by either sides. The specific case of the Complainant is that when it is informed from the office of the Opposite Parties about the reading and the amount to be remitted by the Complainant, objections were given to the Opposite Parties stating the grievances of the Complainant. But without considering the said objections properly, the notice of disconnection was given to the Complainant. It is the specific case of the Complainant that the test report of the meter is very relevant in this case and the Opposite Parties had not given any value to the said report received from the laboratory set up at their TMR division at Kannur. During cross examination of PW1, nothing was come out to disbelieve the allegation of the Complainant. PW2 is the husband of the Complainant. Both PW1 & PW2 deposed that during the period for which the bill is given, no construction work was done in the premises. PW2 deposed that bill was given in June 2020 stating that it is for the period from March 2020 which was lock down period. It is also deposed by PW2 that there was no pending bills till March 2020. More over it is in evidence that the electricity was used only for working the pump. According to the Complainant it is strictly as per the conditions and stipulations of the Opposite parties, the meter was installed and in the test report it is specifically mentioned that there is no physical tampering. During cross examination it is come out in evidence that due to scarcity of materials, no construction work was made from one month prior to the lock down period. More over it is in evidence that the meter was installed inside the shed and the Opposite Parties tested the existing meter by installing another meter along with the old one. In that case, both meters shown the same units of usage of electricity. The meter in question was tested in the meter testing laboratory of KSEB, Kannur and the report is produced as Ext.A3 which shows “ not observed any physical tamper on the meter body”. It is also stated in the remarks portion that “Tested the meter and the meter is conforming with the requirements as per IS. The errors are within permissible limits Magnetic tamper event recorded (downloaded data attached as pdf).
7. Tamper data report attached to the lab report shows that thirteen times tampering was caused to the meter during June 2020 to August 2020. But the relevant period of the exorbitant bill, according to the Complainant, is from March 2020 onwards for which no data is there to verify whether any tampering has caused during that period. It is admitted by the Opposite Party in the version that the reading consumption as per the check meter which is installed on 30.06.2020 till 11.07.2020 is only 5 units which is same as that of the meter in question installed in the premises. At this stage the Commission also considered the consumption history of the Complainant’s connection for 11 months from 1/2020 till 11/2020 which is stated in the version of the Opposite Parties. The table shows that in January 2020 and March 2020, the units shown is Zero and bill amount is Rs.295/- each. But in may 2020 the consumption units shown as 14,780/- and the bill amount is Rs.1,46,323/- for the next reading ie in 7/2020 the consumption unit is shown as 910 and the bill amount is Rs.8,103/-. In 9/2020, the units noted is 437 + 14 (old meter + new meter) and the bill amount is Rs.3,867/-. During 11/2020 the consumption unit is 66 and the bill amount is Rs.716/- considering this consumption history and Ext.A3 report which reveals that the consumption unit 14780 during 5/2020 may not be due to the consumption by the Complainant. There is no other evidence from the side of the Opposite Parties to prove that the consumption of electricity was high at any time during the course of construction of the building before or after the period under challenge. The Opposite Parties had also not established with any evidence including that of local enquiry made by their officers to substantiate and ascertain that such a huge consumption was made by the Complainant during the relevant period. More over it is an admitted case that a spot inspection of the energy meter and the premises was conducted by the officials but could not find any malfunctioning or anything suspicious. Since the bill under challenge is from March 2020 to June 2020, the burden is on the Opposite Parties to show the bi-monthly reading of the said meter for that period which is also not discharged by the Opposite Parties. More over it is stated in the version that they agrees for another test by any other accredited agencies including Central Power Research Institute, Bangalore which shows that the Opposite Parties have no trust in their own lab report.
8. Considering the entire aspects in detail, this Commission feels that Ext.A2 demand and Ext.A4 disconnection notice issued by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties and point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant and hence the following orders are passed.
- Ext.A2 demand notice and Ext.A4 disconnection notice are hereby set aside and the orders issued vide IA 257/2020 dated 23.12.2020 is made absolute.
- The Opposite Parties are at liberty to issue fresh bill after considering Ext.A1 objection and after ascertaining the actual consumption of electricity for the relevant period in due course.
Considering the nature of the complaint, no other reliefs are ordered in this case.
The orders issued above are constraint only to the operation of Ext.A2 and A4 and with
these observations the complaint is allowed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me
and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 5th day of September 2023.
Date of filing:24.12.2020.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Ajithamani. V. Complainant.
PW2. K.N. Sathees. Government . Employee.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Letter. dt:29.07.2020.
A2(a) Copy of Demand cum Disconnection Notice. dt:27.03.2020.
A2(b). Copy of Demand cum Disconnection Notice. dt:31.01.2020.
A3. Copy of Test Report. dt:23.10.2020.
A4. Copy of Disconnection Notice. dt:21.12.2020.
Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:
B1. Copy of Test Results. dt:23.10.2020.
B2. Copy of Check Meter Report.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
