IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 13^th day of May, 2022

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 73/2020 (filed on 15-06-2020)

Petitioner                                          :         Prakash K.

                                                                   S/o. Bhaskaran Pilla,

                                                                   Kizhakkeparambil House,

                                                                   Kadayanikkad P.O.

                                                                   Vellavoor Village,

                                                                   Kottayam – 686541.

                                                                   (Adv. Binoy Abraham)

                                                                             Vs.    

Opposite Party                                 :         Kerala State Electricity Board,

                                                                   Rep. by Assistant Engineer,

                                                                   Electrical Section,

                                                                   Manimala, Karikkattoor P.O.

                                                                   Kottayam – 686 544.

                                                                   (Adv. Deepthy S. Nath)

                                                          O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Complainant is the consumers of opposite party with consumer No.11464200007305. Monthly usage of the electricity is very low and average consumption comes to a tune of Rs.100/- which is evident from the various bills.  But from December 2016 to October 2019 monthly usage of the electricity was very high and average consumption comes to a tune of Rs.200/-. When the meter started to  record high consumption, the complainant lodged a petition before the opposite party demanding  the   inspection of the meter.  But the opposite party failed to inspect the meter.

   On 5-10-2019 complainant was issued with a bill for an amount of Rs.6.228/-. On receipt of the said bill complainant filed another petition before the  opposite party demanding for the inspection of the meter . Thereafter on 22-10 -2019 the opposite party installed a parallel meter to the connection of the complainant to inspect the accuracy of the  existing meter recording. After that on 4-11-2019 at the time of  inspection it was found that there was a huge difference in recording of the consumption of the complainant by the existing meter and the parallel meter.  The consumption of the complainant was recorded by the existing meter for the period 2-10-2019 to 4-11-2019  as   152 units whereas the parallel meter reading was only 39 unit. Thereafter the opposite party replaced the existing meter with a new one and revised the bill for  Rs.6,228 to the tune of Rs.3,450/- after calculating the average consumption of the complainant   in the previous three billing cycles which were recorded by the defective meter. Though the  complainant filed a petition before the opposite party to  reassess the bill  based on the reading which was recorded by the parallel meter; the opposite party  was not amenable for the same.  Instead of considering the prayer of the complainant the opposite party threatened the complainant that they would disconnect the connection unless the complainant made the payment of Rs.3,450/-. Due to the compulsion by the opposite party the complainant paid Rs.2,000/- on 6-11-2019 .   Thereafter on 18-11-2019 the complainant received a demand notice to pay balance amount of Rs.1440/-.   Lastly on 26-11-2019 the opposite party issued a disconnection notice to the complainant. Though the complainant issued a reply notice through the lawyer  calling upon the opposite party to review the demand notice   the opposite party did not  give any heed   to the same. Due to the continuous threat of disconnection the complainant paid the said amount The meter reading of the complainant for the period of 4-11- 2019 to 6-12-2019 was  114 units. On the basis of said reading the complainant was issued with a bill of Rs.1852/-. In the said bill it was stated that the electricity charges was Rs.1543 which was excess than the existing tariff of the opposite party. As per the existing tariff at that time the complainant is bound to pay Rs.3.70  per unit when his consumption was between the  50 to 100 units. Thus the opposite party is bound to levy only Rs.421.80 from the complainant towards electricity charge.   Similarly, in the bill   for the period of 6-12-2019 to 6-2-2020 the opposite party has collected an excess amount of Rs.395. 90 from the complainant towards the energy charges. It is further averred in the complaint that the opposite party has collected  excess amount of Rs.190 towards the fixed charge also.  Act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

Version filed by the opposite party, stating the following contentions.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties.  Bi-monthly electricity bill is given to the Consumer which may vary according to the consumption. On receipt of complaint on                             10-10-2019 the meter of the complainant was tested and it was found as faulty. So the  bill issued on 5-10-2019 was revised according to the provisions of the supply code  and issued a  revised bill  calculating the average consumption of the  three previous  billing period.  The complainant had not lodged any complaint regarding the bills for the period of 1/2016 to 10/2019. The average consumption of the complainant after 5-3-2009 ie the date on which the meter was installed is as follows:

Out of the revised bill amount of Rs.3450 the complainant paid Rs.2000/- on                        6-11-2019.  When the complainant failed to remit the balance amount the disconnection notice was served to him on 26-4-2019.  The bi monthly bill issued to the complainant on 6-12-2019 was for the period of  5-10-2019  to 6-12-2019.  The said bill was issued   as per the meter reading of the newly replaced meter from                4-11-2019   to 6-12-2019 and    the average consumption during the period of              5-10-2019 to 4-11-2019.  The average consumption for the meter faulty period ie          5-10-2019 to 4-11-2019 was  245 units and the actual consumption for the period  of 4-11-2019 to 6-12-2019 was 114 units. Thus  the total bill   for 359 units   was issued to the complainant.  Rs.1543 was for the energy charges as per the existing tariff and the opposite party has not charged any excess amount  from the complainant  towards the energy charges.  The consumption of the complainant from 6-12-2019 to                               4-01-2020 was 86 units.  The connection of the complainant was disconnected on     4-1-2020.  After the restoration of the connection his consumption from 4-1-2020 to 6-2-2020  was 107 units . Therefore a bill for the total consumption of 193 units was issued to him on 6-2-2020  and the energy charges for the said consumption was                  Rs.659.31 .  In the said bill also the opposite party has not collected any excess amount  towards the energy charges.   There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party .       

Complainant and opposite parties filed chief affidavit and documents.  Ext.A1 to A8 marked from the side of complainant.   Opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu  of chief examination and exhibits B1 and B2 were marked from their side..

            Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

3. If so, what is the relief and cost? 

 Issues No 1&2: 

According to the complainant due to the faulty  meter recording he had to pay a huge amount  as electricity bill  for the last three years. It is averred in the affidavit that monthly usage of the electricity is very low and average consumption comes to 100 units, which is evident from the various bills.  But from December 2016  to October 2019 monthly usage of the electricity was very high and average consumption comes to 200 units . Ext.A1 is the reply issued by the opposite party to the complainant under right to information act. On perusal of A1 we can see that the monthly consumption of the complainant from 2/2016 to 10/2019 was between 113 units and 349 units.   On perusal of  exhibit A2,which the reply issued by the opposite party under right to information act we can see that the bi monthly consumption of the complainant was below  223 units till 12/2015.

According to the respondent, the energy meter was declared defective on 4-11-2019. Thereafter the opposite party vide exhibit A3 revised the bill issued for an amount of Rs.6228 to the tune of Rs.3450 after taking the average consumption of the  three previous billing period.

Regulation 125 (1) and (2) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 states, “In the case of defective or damaged meter, the consumer shall be billed on the basis of average consumption of the past three billing cycles immediately preceding the date of the meter being found or reported defective:

Provided that, the average shall be computed from the three billing cycles after the meter is replaced if required details pertaining to previous billing cycles are not available: -

  Provided further that any evidence given by consumer about conditions of working and occupancy of the concerned premises during the said period, which might have had a bearing on energy consumption, shall also be considered by the licensee for computing the average. Charges based on the average consumptions as computed above shall be levied only for a maximum period of two billing cycles during which time the licensee shall replace the defective or damaged meter with a correct meter”.

In this instant case, the required details pertaining to the billing cycles, immediately before the meter becoming faulty are available. Therefore, according to Regulation 125(1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014, the bill issued on the basis of average consumption prior to the replacement of faulty meter is  justifiable. Regulation 125 (2) stipulates that charges based on the average consumption shall be levied only for a maximum period of two billing cycles. From the energy meter reading and the consumption details of the consumer premises furnished by the opposite party, the commission observed that the energy meter became defective on a date between 2/2016 and 10/2019. Hence, this Commission is of the view that bill shall be issued to the petitioner for two billing cycles, based on the average consumption of past three billing cycles immediately preceding the meter faulty period, ie; 08/2019, 06/2019 & 04/2019.  We find no deficiency in service or  irregularity in issuing  the revised bill by the opposite party for the meter faulty period.  Another contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has collected excess amount of Rs.1124.66 for the period of 5-10-2019 to 6-12-2019 and   Rs.263.41 for the period of  6-12-2019 to 6-2-2020. Exhibit A7 is the demand and disconnection notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 6-12-2019.  On perusal of exhibit A7 we can see that the   previous meter reading was taken on 4-11-2019. It is further recorded in Exhibit A7, that  the   initial meter reading on                 4-11-2019 is zero and the present meter reading as on 6-12-2019 as 114.0 units. Thus the consumption of the complainant for the period from 4-11-2019 to 6-12-2019  was 114 units. As per Exhibit A7  the opposite party has collected Rs.1543 .46 towards the electricity charges from the complainant.  On perusal of exhibit A8 which is  which is the bill issued to the complainant on 6-2-2020  we can see that  the previous reading on  6-12-2019 was 200 units and the present reading on  6-2-2020 was 307 units. Thus the consumption of the complainant during the period from -6-12-2019 to 6-2-2020  was 107 units.  Exhibit A2  is  the reply issued by the opposite party to the complainant under right to information act. On perusal of exhibit  A2 we can see that the  opposite party has explained the energy  charges applicable   for the consumer  having single phase connection  as per their consumption.

The LT-1 Domestic (Residential) tariff applicable to supply of electrical energy for domestic purpose (both single phase and three phase) WITH EFFECT FROM 08.07.2019

It is contended by the opposite party that   they had issued the exhibit A7 bill  including the average consumption of the  complainant   during the period from                    5-10-2019 to 5-11-2019 ie the period in which the meter was  faulty.  It is submitted by the opposite party that the average consumption of the complainant during that period was 245 units.   Thus complainant is bound to pay for the total  consumption of 359 units ie from 5-10-2019 to 6-12-2019.    It is pertinent to note that the  opposite party has admitted that the faulty meter of the complainant  was replaced on                    4-11-2019. We already found that   the opposite party has issued  a bill in accordance with the provisions of the law after calculating  the average consumption of the complainant for the meter faulty period. 

          On perusal of exhibit A7 and A8,  we can see that   in column (i) it is stated that there was no arrears  to pay. As per regulation 123  opposite party is bound to give information  regarding the arrears with details  to the complainant in the bill.  Without stating the details regarding the arrears the opposite party cannot demand and collect any amount other than the charges for the energy consumed during the billing period.  Issuing a bill without complying the provisions of the   law  amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Thus the complainant is liable to pay  energy charges for 114 units for the period of 4-11-2019 to 6-12-2019.  The total energy charges payable by the complainant is Rs.366.80 (3.15x100+3.70x14). Thus the opposite party has collected                                   Rs.1176.66 (1543.46-366.8) from the complainant towards   the energy charges  for the period of 4-11-2019 to 6-12-2019. On perusal of exhibit  A8 we can see that the consumption of the complainant was 107 units. The total energy charges payable by the complainant is Rs.340.90 (3.15x100+3.70x7). Thus  the  opposite party has  collected   excess of Rs.318.41(659.31-340.90) from the complainant towards   the energy charges for the period  from 6-12-2019 to 6-2-2020 .  Though the opposite party submitted in the version and proof affidavit that the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 4-1-2020, neither in the version nor in the affidavit opposite party disclosed the reason for the disconnection and the date on which the connection was restored.  Moreover the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that the service connection of the complainant was disconnected due to the non- payment of energy charges or any other reasons. If it is considered we cannot believe that the service connection of the complainant has been restored by the opposite party without clearing any arrears due to them.  Thus we are of the opinion that the opposite party has collected excess amount of Rs.1495.07 from the complainant towards the energy charges  during the period from 4-11-2019 to                            6-2-2020.  The said act  amounts to unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party. No doubt the act of the opposite party caused much mental agony and hardship to the complainant for which the opposite party is labile to compensate.

In the light of the above discussion we allow this complaint in part and pass the following order.

1. We hereby direct the opposite party to refund Rs.1495.07 ie the excess amount collected by the opposite party to the complainant or to adjust the same amount in the future electricity bill of the complainant.
2. We hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,500/-  to the complainant as compensation  for the mental agony and  hardship caused by the unfair trade practice of the opposite party.

The Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.  If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 13^th day of May, 2022

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member               Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                 Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – Reply to the RTI by opposite party to Prakash

A2 – Copy of RTI application dtd.12-12-19 by petitioner to opposite party and its

         reply

A3 – Copy of letter dtd.11-11-19 by petitioner to opposite party

A4 – Letter dtd.18-11-19 by opposite party to petitioner

A5 – Letter dtd.26-11-19 by opposite party to petitioner

A6 –Copy of lawyers notice dtd.02-12-19 by Adv.T.S. Raju to opposite party

A7- Demand cum disconnection notice dtd.06-12-19 by opposite party

A8 –Bill dtd.06-02-20 for Rs.807

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

B1 – Copy of letter dtd.10-10-19 by petitioner to opposite party

B2 – Reply to the lawyer’ notice by opposite party

                                                                                                          By Order

                                                                                        Assistant Registrar