D.O.F:15/05/2017
D.O.O:29/06/2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.95/17
Dated this, the 29th day of June 2019
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
Subrahmanya Bhat, S/o. Late Ishwara Bhat, : Complainant
R/at Votedka House, Katukukke Village of
Manjeshwar Taluk. Po.Balemoole.671552
Kasaragod.Dt. 671552.
(Adv.C.H.Vishnu Bhat, Kasaragod)
1 Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.
Vyduthi Bhavan, Pattom Thiruvananthapuram- 695004 :Opposite parties
2 The Assistant Executive Engineer, ,
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Perla (P.O). 671551.
(Adv: M.Mohanan Nambiar)
-
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
This complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act is for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1, 00,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation and other reliefs.
The Case of the complaint is that:-
The complainant is a consumer of Opposite Party KSEB Ltd vide consumer No: 5007220 he pays bills regularly for the same. The meter was defective and on complaint, it was rectified later. He received bill dated 28/04/2017 showing Rs.12870/- as due. Details of actual consumption of electricity are not furnished. He received another notice dated 23/05/2017 threatening disconnection of power supply in case of default in paying the amount. Due to the deficiency of service complainant suffered mental agony. Hence the complaint.
The Opposite Parties entered appearance before the Fora and submitted their written version denying all the allegations. The Opposite Party contended that meter stopped working and no reading is shown for the period February 2014 to December 2014. Due to shortage of new meter, new meter was not installed. Average consumption was taken as 200 units. Supported by Regulation No: 134 of Electricity supply code subsequent reading it was found that consumer used 2051 units during 4 bi monthly consumption from February 2015 to August 2015. This is taken as basis for purpose of average use. So monthly consumption comes to 512 units and for five months it comes to 2560 units. By the time consumer is already charged for 1000 units and consumer is liable to pay for the remaining balance units namely 1560 units. Prevailing tariff is Rs.7.50 per units for 1560 units it comes to 11700 and 10% surcharge added it would comes to Rs.12870/-. And there is no deficiency of service from the part of the Opposite Party. Complainant has malafide intention in filing the complaint and hence may be dismissed and allow Opposite Party’s to proceed in accordance with law.
On the basis of rival contentions in the pleadings the following issues was framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complaint is entitled for any reliefs?
- Reliefs and costs?
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination Ext A1 Marked document marked that is, copy of Bill No: 570331. He was cross examined by Opposite Party. Opposite Parties have not adduced any evidence.
The complaint adduced evidence by submitting his chief affidavit is lieu of his chief examinations to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as Pw1 by the Opposite Party and he relied on Ext A1 document marked on his side. According to him he is a prompt consumer of Opposite Party and due to the deficiency of service from Opposite Party he suffered financial loss and mental agony. Opposite Party has admitted in their version that meter was faulty for a short time. Though the meter found defective it was not replaced then and there. Once the meter is found defective by the Board, there is a statutory obligation on the part of the Board, to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector. The paramount duty of the Board is to see that a trouble free meter is installed in the consumers premises and in case it is found that the meter is faulty and not recording the correct consumption of electrical energy it is the responsibility of the board to get this meter tested by electrical inspector. They have also got a statutory obligation to check the meter periodically to ascertain as to whether the meter is functioning properly.
In this case it seens that the officer/employees of the Opposite Party issued bills on average basis without replacing the meter in time. Inspite of having the knowledge of the fact for a long time, that the display of meter has not been showing readings, bills was given on average basis is a serious deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. It was after a considerable delay the meter was changed. There is no allegation that the meter in any way tampered with or misused by the consumer. The arrears bill is sent with surcharge without giving any opportunity of hearing to the consumer. In the above circumstances, the Forum finds that the liability now cost up on the complainant, making him to pay the sum of Rs.12870 is not as per law and is liable to be held as null and void hence Ext A1 bill demand is held null and void.
In this circumstances complaint is allowed in part and the payment already effected by the complaint pursuant to the interim order passed by the Forum is directed to be set off against the future bills of the complaint. And there is a serious deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party in not replacing the meter in time due to which the complainant suffered much hardships and mental agony. For that this Forum directs the opposite party to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. And also the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as litigation cost to the complaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1. Copy of Bill No: 570331
Witness Examined
Pw1. Subrahmanya Bhat
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
