Kerala

Idukki

CC/148/2019

Raji K Damodharan - Complainant(s)

Versus

K S E B ASSI: Eng - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 2.8.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  9^th  day of  June, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.148/2019

Between

Complainant                                           :  Raju K. Damodaran,

                                                                  Kayattiyanickal House,

                                                                  West Kodikkulam P.O.,

                                                                  Thodupuzha.

 (By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                     :  1.  The Assistant Engineer,

                                                                     Kerala State Electricity Board,

                                                                     Kaliyar P.O.

       2.  The Executive Engineer,

            Kerala State Electricity Board,

             Section I, Thodupuzha,

            Thodupuzha P.O.

        3.  The Secretary,

                                                                      Kerala State Electricity Board,

                                                                      Vydyuthi  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 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short).  Case of the complainant is briefly discussed hereunder :

                                                                  

                                                                                             (cont....2)

• 2  -

 

          Complainant is a consumer of Kerala State Electricity Board, his Consumer Number being 1156221005202.  1^st opposite party is  Assistant Engineer of Kaliyar Section of Kerala State Electricity Board.  2^nd opposite party is  Executive Engineer of Section II A, Thodupuzha and 3^rd opposite party is Secretary of KSEB, which has its office at Thiruvananthapuram.  Complainant alleges that he used to pay his electricity dues promptly upon generation of bill without any delay.  In 2018, his electricity meter showed some defects.  Upon his complaint, it was replaced by the Board on 25.11.2018.  Thereafter  bills generated were being paid promptly.  While so, on 12.7.2019, opposite parties have generated a bill for Rs.20,521/- payable by  complainant, which included Rs.10,986/- as energy charge, Rs.8,514/- for door lock adjustment, Rs.1,593/- towards ACD/ADJ, Rs.546/- as advance and Rs.24/- towards surcharge.  Rs.975.31/- was also claimed as duty towards energy charge.  When complainant had made enquiry regarding the said bill, he was informed by opposite party that on two occasions, (before generation of the impugned bill) reading could not be taken as door was found to be locked.  Excess billing and charges are owing to this.  If bill amount is not paid, connection will be disconnected on 6.8.2019.  Complainant submits that he had not locked up his house or gone elsewhere.  Door of his residential compound was locked only during night time. There was no reason or occasion from the side of complainant which had prevented the reading of electricity meter.  Complainant was in very cordial terms with employees of opposite parties.  No such omission from the side of complainant was pointed out to him till 12.7.2019.  Bills generated and communicated to complainant until that date were being promptly paid by him.  Non-reading of electric meter was not due to the fault of complainant, but owing to the latches of meter reader.  Complainant is not liable to pay excess electricity charges as claimed in the impugned bill.  Such a claim amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Complainant prays for setting aside / cancelling the bill issued to him dated 12.7.2019.  He seeks compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service occasioned by opposite parties and Rs.5000/- towards litigation costs.

 

          2.  Opposite parties have filed a joint written version.  Their contentions are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          Opposite parties admitted that complainant is a registered consumer under Electrical Section, Vannappuram, with consumer No.1156221005202.  He was granted a three phase connection on 10.10.1996 with a connected load of 14.7 KW                                                                                                        (cont....3)

• 3  -

under LT-IA tariff with bimonthly billing.  Residential compound of  complainant has an extent of 10 acres, surrounded by a high compound wall and secured by an iron gate.  There are guard dogs inside and therefore entry to the residential compound is  highly restricted.  Bill dated 8.3.2019 covers the period from 11.1.2019 to 8.3.2019.  Next bill date is 10.5.2019 (bill period from 8.3.2019 to 10.5.2019).  During   the billing period of both bills, meter reading could not be taken as the premises were locked.  Therefore, initially the consumer was billed with Rs.6,623/- for an average consumption of 872 units based on previous readings as per Supply Code 2014, Section 124(1).  On the next billing date, which was, 12.7.2019, premises were accessible  and meter reading was taken which evidenced total consumption for 3 billing cycles (6 months).  In order to regularise average bill issued for door lock period, entire consumption unit was divided by 3.  Average consumption during door lock bill period was less than actual consumption.  Electricity charges for the differential were claimed as arrears.  Bill details are as here under:

 

Total consumption for the period from 11.1.2019 to 12.7.2019    = 3884 units.

(That is the difference between the final reading on 12.7.2019, 6293 KWH and initial reading 2409 KWH on 11.1.2019)

 

          Bimonthly consumption for 1 billing cycle   =  3884/3   =  1295 units.

          Bimonthly bill amount for 1295 units          =  10,936/-

         

Arrear amount to the door lock bill dated 8.3.2019 for the balance

423 units   =   4,257/-

          Arrear amount to the door lock bill dated 10.5.2019 for the balance

                   423 units   =   4,257/-

          Additional cash deposit       =   1,593/-

          Surcharge                             =        24/-

          (late payment fee of the proceeding bill dated 10.5.2019)

          Less interest given to the consumer for the security deposit   =  (-) 546/-

 

          Net amount         =   20,521/-

 

Bill was generated and issued in accordance with Rules and Regulations.  Hence complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

 

                                                                                                          (cont...4)

-  4  -

          3.  After filing of written version, case was posted for evidence after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides to tender evidence.  No oral evidence was given by complainant.  Documents produced by him were admitted as Exts.P1 and P2.  Opposite party No.1, the present Assistant Engineer of Vannappuram Section was examined as RW1, on the side of opposite parties and Ext.R1 was proved by her.  After examination of RW1, evidence was closed and both sides were heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there was latches on the part of opposite parties in taking electricity meter reading installed in complainant’s premises  ?

2)  Whether the amount claimed as per Ext.P1 is excessive ?

3)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for ?

4)  Final Order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together for the sake of convenience :

 

          Learned counsel for the complainant would at the very outset submit that correctness of Ext.P1 is not in challenge.  Complainant is aggrieved for the reason that he has been charged in excess for no fault of his own.His premises were open and easily accessible.  He and his family are residing there.If at all, reading was to be taken, employees of opposite parties could have entered his residential compound at any point of time during working hours and taken reading.  They had                   faulted in  not taking reading in time.  For this complainant could not be penalised.  However, able counsel would concede that  complainant is prepared to pay for actual consumption of energy during the said period, but he should not be penalised by claim of meter reading door lock adjustment or similar charges. 

 

          Learned counsel appearing for opposite party would submit that billing was done in accordance with Section 124(1) of Supply Code regulations.  On 2 occasions meter reading could not be done as premises of complainant wherein the electric meter was installed, could not  be accessed.  It is admitted that complainant is residing in a 10 acre compound which is secured by a high compound wall and iron gate, which is kept locked.  This was because there are guard dogs patrolling inside.  Entry is very much restricted.  It was the duty of complainant to see that meter is accessible for reading during working hours to the employees of KSEB.  Since he has not done so, it was necessary to draw up a bill reflecting actual consumption and also such charges and duties in connection with the excess consumption, which would place the complainant with the group of consumers paying higher tariff. Able counsel also pointed out that billing was strictly in accordance with regulations and no excess amount was collected.            (cont...5)

• 5  -

 

          Thus these are the rival contentions. Though the complainant states that  electricity meter installed in his residential premises is easily accessible,   RW1 has pleaded and given evidence to the effect that it was a  compound having an extent of 10 acres, secured by high compound wall and locked gate, besides there were guard dogs inside the compound and therefore entry into the compound was very much restricted. This evidence of RW1 has not been challenged.  Considering the manner in which  residential compound of complainant is secured with compound wall, locked gate and guard dogs, we are of the view that the burden was upon the complainant to prove that, despite all these, he had provided safe access to the employees of KSEB for taking meter reading from the electricity meter installed in his premises without any danger to their person.  This has not been done by the complainant.  We  also notice that RW1 was cross examined with regard to report / information given by the meter reader about the premises being locked up, namely, door locked. RW1 has given evidence that there is no practice of filing/giving written reports.  The information passed by them to office Superintendent is fed into the system by the person who had gone to take the reading, with the assistance of office Superintendent.  Evidence of RW1 would give to show that this was the routine procedure in which meter reading was done.  There is nothing to show that  any deliberate omission or latches from the side of meter reader in not taking the reading.  Complainant claims to be on very cordial terms with employees of opposite parties.  If this were to be true, ordinarily, there is no need for the opposite party to generate an  inflated bill deliberately to harass  complainant.  Therefore, we do not think that non-taking of meter reading was due to any omission, deliberate or not, from the side of opposite parties or persons working under them.  As far as amount claimed in Ext.P1 is concerned, arguments and evidence tendered would give to show that  method of calculation is not in challenge.  The only case projected by complainant is that meter reading was not taken owing to latches of the employees of Board, for which complainant cannot be penalised.  Considering evidence tendered in this regard, we are of the view that the premises which were highly secured with locked gate and guard dogs were not made accessible to the employees of the Board or persons working under them for taking meter reading.  That being so, we find that complainant has not proved that there was any latches from the side of opposite parties or their employees amounting to deficiency in service.  For the very same reason, we find that no unfair trade practice was adopted by opposite parties.  Hence complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

 

                                                                                                             (cont...6)

• 6  -

 

 

5.  Point No.4 :

 

          In the result, this petition is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.

 

                   Pronounced by this Commission on this the    9^th  day of June, 2022

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                      SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                            Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                                                                                                            Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

RW1        -   Priyanka P.S.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    -  Electricity bill dated 12.7.2019.

Ext.P2    -  copy of letter issued by opposite party dated 25.11.2018.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    -  Consumer profile details.

 

                                                                             Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                                                                          ASSISTANT REGISTRAR