Kerala

Idukki

CC/165/2020

Abdukareem - Complainant(s)

Versus

K S E B Thodupuzha - Opp.Party(s)

Adv:K M Sanu

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING :  24.11.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 20^th  day of  December,  2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.165/2020

Between

Complainant                                           :     Abdulkareem, S/o. Pareeth,

Maraveettikkal House,

Thodupuzha East P.O., Undaplavu, Idukki.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                      : 1. The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

No.II Section, Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

                                                                               2. The Sub Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

No.II Section, Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

       3. The Secretay,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydyutha Bhavan,

Pattam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(All by Adv: Lissy M.M.)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complaint averments are briefly discussed here under :

 

          Complainant is a consumer of Kerala Electricity Board having consumer No.1156207002873C/L 600w-BO2/18 being LT IA tariff, being a domestic connection.  For the last 20 years, complainant was getting bills ranging from Rs.1400 to Rs.1500 bimonthly, which were promptly remitted by him.  1^st opposite party is Assistant Engineer of KSEB No.II Section, Thodupuzha, 2^nd opposite party is Sub Engineer, KSEB No.II Section, Thodupuzha and 3^rd opposite party is the Secretary of KSEB having its office at Thiruvananthapuram.  On 15.10.2020, 2^nd opposite party had given a bill for Rs.35,662/-.  When complainant had enquired about the same with opposite                                                                                                                            (cont….2)

• 2  -

parties 1 and 2, he had come to know that as per audit done, the amount was found to be due for actual consumption from 15.6.2015 to 21.12.2017.  Complainant submits that during the aforesaid period, he was paying bimonthly bills issued by the Board after recording of meter reading.  Additional bill of Rs.35,662/- is issued not on the basis of actual consumption.  Audit was done years after the period during which excess power was allegedly consumed.  Opposite parties have no right to recover the amount mentioned in excess/additional bill.  Issuing of bill without any basis and attempting to forcibly recover the amount is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  Hence complainant prays for a direction that the bill dated 15.10.2020 for Rs.35,662/- to be set aside and for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- from opposite parties for deficiency in service along with Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs. 

 

2.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed joint written version.  Their contentions are briefly discussed here under : 

 

According to them, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  They do admit that complainant is a consumer under the Board as tariff paying domestic with consumer number mentioned in the complaint, coming under Electrical Section of Thodupuzha No.II.  Registered connected load is 600 watts.  Billing is done bimonthly, as per consumption recorded in energy meter installed in the premises.  Consumption is arrived at by calculating the difference between the reading recorded presently and that of the last billing period.  In case of mismatches such as not working of meter display or any creep or  hike in the assessment, meter reader can change the status of energy meter as Suspected  Faulty (S/F).  In such cases, consumer will be served with bills for their previous average consumption as per Regulation 125(1) of Supply Code.  Later if the Board is convinced that the meter is working properly, there is provision for issuing revised bill for  actual consumption as ex-system bill.  From 14.2.2014 onwards, energy meter status of  complainant was changed to Suspected Faulty. Since previous average bimonthly consumption of complainant was 144 units, as per the faulty meter, consumer was issued bills for average consumption of 144 units bimonthly.  Later, readings were visibly  recorded in energy meter and also posted by the meter reader in each billing period.  Since status of meter was not changed as working in billing software, bills were issued on the basis of average consumption as mentioned above, up to bill pertaining to 12/17.  On 28.12.2017, Suspected Faulty meter was replaced with a new meter.  Final reading recorded in the replaced energy meter was 15075 KWH.   Upon checking next few bimonthly bills after the energy meter was replaced, a change in consumption pattern was noted.  Consumption after replacement of meter for the months of 2/18, 4/18, 6/18 and 8/18 was 365, 367, 366 and 419 units respectively.  This consumption pattern discloses that there was a clear shortage in the previously issued bills to complainant, where he was charged bimonthly for average consumption of 144 units only.  It  also discloses that there was short assessment as pointed out in the report of Regional Audit Office.  As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant                                                                                                                        (cont….3)

• 3  -

Engineer (D1) Ajmer Vidyuth Vitharan Nigam Ltd. Vs. Rahmathulla Khan in (Civil Appeal No.1672 of 2020) Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act will not preclude licensee company from raising an additional or supplementary demand after expiry of limitation period in case of a mistake or bonafide error.  It was also held therein that amount will become due only when bill is issued and hence Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act will not be applicable to additional or supplementary bill.  During inspection of Audit conducted by Regional Audit Office, it was found that premises were undercharged during  the period for which average billing was done. As per Regulation 134 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014, licensee has  power to recover arrears of charges or any other amount due from consumer along with interest at the rates applicable for belated payments from the date when such payment become due.  There was sudden surge in consumption after replacement of suspected faulty meter with a new one on 28.12.2017.  Difference between actual meter reading posted and average consumption billed during each billing period are electricity charges actually due to the Board.  Hence a short assessment bill was issued to complainant for bills issued from 6/15 to 12/17 on the basis of actual consumption.  An arrear CC bill of Rs.32,834/- (bill for Rs.35,666/- was later revised as for Rs.32,834/-) was issued to complainant for the actual consumption of 7191 units less average consumption of 2160 as billed earlier.  Short assessment was of 5031 units.  Actual short assessment to be billed is for 4 years.  However, here it is done for 2 years and 6 months.  Hence complainant is liable to remit the short assessment bill.  Opposite parties have acted in accordance with rules and regulations.  There is no cause of action for filing this complaint.  Hence it is to be dismissed and opposite party should be permitted to realise the amount due as per short assessment bill.

 

3. After filing of written version, case was posted for steps and then for evidence.  No oral evidence was tendered by both sides.  On the side of complainant, copy of audit report of RAO, Thodupuzha dated 11.11.2020 was marked as Ext.P1.  Exts.R1 and R2 were marked on the side of opposite parties.  Ext.R1 is photocopy of calculation details of consumer No.2873 BO2/18, IA/600W and Ext.R2 is a print out of consumer profile of the complainant maintained by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  After admission of Exts.R1 and R2, evidence was closed and both sides were heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

3)  Final order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :

 

Main contention advanced by learned counsel for complainant is that no excess billing can be done on the basis of an audit report relating to bills which were generated years earlier.  Learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 would contend that as per Regulation 134 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code of 2014, if the licensee establishes                                                                                                               (cont…4)

• 4  -

either by review or otherwise, that it has undercharged a consumer, undercharged amount can be recovered from the consumer by issuing a bill and in such cases,  30 days will be given to the consumer for making payment.  It was also contended that in case of non-recovery which is subsequently discovered, regardless of Section 56, all amounts can be recovered from the consumer in the light of decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned in written version.

 

Complainant has no case that any wanton mistake was committed by opposite parties and owing to such mistake, he is being made liable for excess amount for her consumption which was not chargeable as such.  He  has only  contended that amount due vide bimonthly bills were being paid regularly and therefore he is not liable to pay any more amount for which he has already been billed.  On the other hand, opposite parties would contend that meter was designated as Suspected Faulty from 14.2.2014 onwards.  It was subsequently replaced on 28.12.2017.  Thereafter there was a surge in usage of power which is evidenced from bimonthly bills for February, April, June and August of 2018.  Consumption was 365, 367, 366 and 419 units respectively, whereas average consumption recorded for the period from 15.6.2015 till 21.12.2017 and for earlier periods since March 2014 was 144 units.  Discrepancy was detected in audit conducted periodically by Regional Audit Office.  There was clear evidence that complainant was not charged for consumption of 5031 units which had  escaped assessment.  Exts.R1 and R2 would substantiate these contentions and we  also observe that short assessment reckoned is only for 2 years and 6 months, though it was to be billed for more period.  As far as collection of undercharged amount from the consumer is concerned, Regulation 134 of Supply Code authorizes such recovery.  However, such recovery could be only in accordance with Section 56(2) of Electricity Act of 2003.  In the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is being relied upon by opposite parties, it has been observed that limitation runs from the date when amount becomes first due and in case of supplementary demand after expiry of 2 years limitation period, bar is only against disconnection and that Board is entitled to realise the amount covered by additional/supplementary bills by resorting to other means.  Under these circumstances, we hold that opposite parties are entitled to realise the amount covered by subsequent bill relating to short assessment.  According to opposite parties, initial demand was for Rs.35,666/- which was later revised as Rs.32,834/-.  In Ext.P1, as per audit report, amount which was to be remitted as undercharged is shown as Rs.35,662/-.  No bills as such, additional/supplementary were submitted by complainant.  Under these circumstances, we are of the view that complainant is not entitled to get the revised bill set aside as such.  However, he is entitled for a direction that the recovery could not be resorted to by disconnection of his power supply. Complaint and I.A. filed against disconnection of power supply for realizing amount covered by additional bill discloses a cause of action for a direction against disconnection to facilitate recovery of arrears. It is noticed that opposite parties have not stated that recovery will not be done by                                                                                                                (cont…5)

 

• 5  -

disconnecting power supply. That being so, complainant is entitled for a direction against disconnection as mentioned above.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.3:

 

          In the result, this complaint is allowed in part without costs. Opposite parties are prohibited from realizing amount due as per additional bill issued on the basis of Ext.P1 by disconnecting power supply of complainant.  However, it is made clear that additional dues can be recovered by resorting to other means as per law. Interim prohibitory orders passed shall stand vacated. Parties shall take back extra copies submitted by them, without delay.

 

                    Pronounced by this Commission on this the  20^th  day of December, 2022

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                             Sd/-

                       SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                                      Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1     - Copy of audit report of RAO, Thodupuzha dated 11.11.2020

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    -  Photocopy of calculation details of consumer No.2873 BO2/18, IA/600W

Ext.R2   -   Print out of consumer profile of the complainant maintained by

        1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

 

 

                                                                                      Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR