THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 276/2010
Friday, the 30th day of December, 2011.
Petitioner : P.B. Binu
Thanakulam
Vakathanam
Kottayam.
(By Adv. N. Lekshmanakumar)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,
Vydhyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
reptd. by its Secretary.
2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer,
KSEB, Electric Division,
Vakathanam,
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 4..11..2010 is as follows.
Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party with vide consumer No. 11205 of Vakathanam Electric Division. During June 2010 petitioner started construction of a residential building. For the purpose of construction petitioner applied for a temporary connection and same was allowed by second opposite party under LT VII A tariff. On 22..7..2010 bill was issued by second opposite party for Rs. 5320/-. On August 25th the construction work was over. On completion of construction petitioner applied for a permanent connection by submitting relevant documents. On 29..5..2010 a bill was issued, to the petitioner, by the second opposite party demanding to pay Rs. 31104/-. According to the petitioner he never consumed so much of electrical energy. Petitioner complained about the exorbitant bill. Opposite party assured to sent the meter for TMR Test. According to the petitioner issuance of
-2-
the bill amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for cancellation of the bill Dtd: 25..9..2010. Petitioner claims cost and compensation.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. The service connection was originally allotted under LT VII A tariff for construction purpose. The actual consumption during the billing period under LT VII A tariff is 625 unit and consumer remitted the same. According to the opposite party disputed bill was issued for the consumption from 22..7..20210 to 25..9..2010 for 3403 units. On receipt of the bill petitioner filed a complaint before the Assistant Engineer and he requested to test the energy meter installed in his premises. As a preliminary test the standard meter was installed in parallel with original disputed meter for comparing the correctness of the reading recorded. On inspection it was found that the energy meter is recording correctly. On intimation of dis satisfaction by consumer energy meter was sent to TMR division for a detailed test. As per test report it was found that the errors were within limit. So, according to the opposite party bills issued is only for actual consumption and there is no deficiency in service on their part . Opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to
A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite party.
-3-
Point No. 1
Petitioner produced disputed bill Dtd: 25..9..2010 for Rs. 31,104/- the same is marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 bill is issued for the consumption of 3403 units of electrical energy. According to the petitioner issuance of Ext. A1 bill amounts to deficiency in service. Petitioner alleges that the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner is faulty and the opposite party has not sent the meter for testing it in TMR division . Opposite party produced the test report of the disputed meter. The test report copy produced is marked as Ext. B4. From Ext. B4 document it can be seen that “errors within limits and meter is OK”. So, from Ext. B4 it can be seen that the meter of the petitioner is correct. Admittedly opposite party supplied 3403 units of electrical energy from their system. Since meter is faulty it can be refered that there may be chances of earth leakage due to un known reason. Since so much of energy is supplied by the opposite party the consumer is liable to pay cost for the same. In our view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing Ext. A1 bill. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is dismissed..
Taking a lenient view we allow the petitioner to remit the amount covered under Ext. A1 bill in 5 equal monthly installment to the opposite party. Opposite party is not entitled for any penal interest or other charges for the disputed bill amount. Petition is disposed accordingly.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
-4-
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December , 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 25..9..2010
Ext. A2: Bill Dtd: 23..12..2010
Ext. A3: Property tax receipt
Ext. A4: Possession certification Dtd: 16..8..2010
Document for the opposite party
Ext. B1: Copy of bill Dtd: 25..9..2010.
Ext. B2: Copy of complaint Dtd: 27..9..2010
Ext. B3: Copy of report Dtd: 15..10..2010 prepared by Sub Engineer.
Ext. B4: Copy of test report of meter laboratory.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
