IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 11th day of May, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
C C No. 57/2019 (filed on 26-04-2019)
Petitioner : Sree Gokulam Highway Tower Apartment
Owner’s Welfare Association,
Repd. by its Secretary,
John Joseph @ Abi Kunneparambil,
Kunneparambil House,
Moolavattom, Nattakom P.O.
Kottaym.
(Adv. Akash K.R.)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) The Kerala State Electricity Board,
Repd. by its Secretary,
Vydhuthi Bhavan, Pattom P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram.
2) The Assistant Engineer,
O/o the Asst. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Sub Division,
Nattakom P.O. Kottayam.
(For Op 1 and 2, Adv. Deepthy S. Nath
and Adv. Majesh P,B,)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
The case of the complainant is as follows: -
The complainant is the president of the Welfare association formed by the apartment owners of Sree Gokulam highway Tower which is constituted and register under Travancore – Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act. There are common area facilities in the apartment. The opposite party provided a service connection with consumer no10765 to the common area and the residents association is paying the electricity bill.
On 20-2-2019 the opposite party conducted an inspection at the premises
and found that the 3 phase CT meter connection given to common facilities was interchanged. So opposite party after calculating average consumption issued a shot assessment bill for an amount of Rs.123592. Along with the bill opposite party issued a notice stating that on inspection they found that the Y and B phase of voltage reference wires of the Ct meter are seen interchanged and there by meter registered a reduced consumption. So the bill for Rs.244025/- is assessed and as per section 152(3) of Kerala Electricity Supply code opposite party issued a revised bill for Rs.123592 According to the complainant, average consumption of electricity before inspection and after inspection of bills there was no reduced
consumption. Even if there is a defect in phase association due to inter change in phase connection done by the servants of the opposite party the petitioner is not liable for the same. The meter was not faulty. The act of the opposite party in issuing short assessment bill not in accordance with law amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has suffered a lot of sufferings from the above said act of the opposite party. Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed
version contending as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that a domestic connection was given for catering common area facilities of Sree Gokulam Tower. The said premises was inspected as part of routine inspection at C.T. metering premises. On inspection it was found that metering equipments were seen installed on a vertical panel set. Three CTs R,Y, B phases were installed inside the right most vertical cable duct portion. From each CT’s S1 terminal connection was given to corresponding terminal of meter using green coloured wires and S 2 terminal with blue coloured wires. There is cabin with a TPN switch to which the voltage lead for each phase is taken. On meter side, red , yellow and blue wires are fitted correctly at voltage terminal of R,Y, and B phases respectively. However at TPN terminal side, the blue and yellow wires seen interchanged, thus resulting in wrong phase association for current and voltage of Y and B phases. The effect of existing metering arrangement had already been tested by the help of outdoor metering testing unit II of TMR division, Pallom by down loading meter data and reported hat the meter will record only reduced consumption. On 20-2-2019 another meter was installed with correct phase association. Later on 12-3-2019 reading of the both meters were taken and recorded in a site mahazar. The reading in three zones in old meter and correct meter were 21,2, 1 and 31.2,5, and 5.9 respectively. Recorded consumption in meter with wrong phase association is less than that in the parallel meter with correct phase association. Hence reading recorded in the newly connected meter was used for the purpose of billing.
It is submitted in the version that for the purpose of short assessment on
16-3-2019 the meter with wrong phase association was tested with a calibrated standard reference meter, by ATPs Kottayam and reported an error of 37.5%. Based on these evidence a total short fall of Rs.2,44,025/- in amount billed was assessed for the period from August 2014 till the date of inspection. Complying to section 152(3) of the Supply code the claim was limited for a period of 2 years preceding date of inspection ie from2/2017 to 2/2019 a short assessment bill of Rs.1,23,592 was issued. It is further submitted in the version that there was no tampering of meter by the complainant. According to the opposite party petitioner’s role in wrong wiring cannot be ruled out. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and exhibits A1 to A3were marked. Opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exhibits B1 to B6 were got marked from the side of the opposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint version and evidence on record we would
like to consider the following points.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on
the side of the opposite parties?
2 If so what are the reliefs?
Point number 1 and 2
The complainant is the president of the Welfare association formed by the apartment owners of Sree Gokulam highway Tower. There is no dispute on the fact that the opposite party provided a service connection with consumer no10765 to the common area and the residents association is paying the electricity bill.
The specific case of the complainant is that on 20-2-2019 the opposite party conducted an inspection at the premises and found that the 3 phase CT meter connection given to common facilities was interchanged. So opposite party after calculating average consumption issued a shot assessment bill for an amount of Rs.1,23,592/-.
According to the opposite parties TPN terminal side, the blue and yellow wires seen interchanged, resulting in wrong phase association for current and voltage of Y and B phases and the meter recorded only reduced consumption than the actual consumption. Exhibit A1 is the notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 29-3-2019. In exhibit A1 it is stated that on inspection it was found that Y and B phase voltage reference wires were connected interchanged
and thereby causing a reduced recording of consumption in the meter .
It is further stated in the exhibit A1 that due to the error in meter recording has been ascertained using the standard reference meter and from the downloaded meter data and it is found that 37.5 of the total consumption was not being recorded and billed from 8/2014 to 2/2019 and afterwards. Exhibit B2 is the mahazar prepared by the sub engineer of the second opposite party on 20-2-2019 at the time of inspection of the premises of the Sree Gokulam Towers. Ongoing through the exhibit B2 we can see that at TPN terminal switch side, the blue and yellow wires seen interchanged. Exhibit B2 reveals that after recording of the current meter reading of the existing meter the sub engineer has installed a test meter with zero reading to inspect whether there is any reduced recording of the actual consumption energy by the consumer meter.
It is pertinent to note that it is stated in exhibit B2 that the inspection was conducted after the previous inspection which was conducted by the assistant executive engineer of the second opposite party as per the direction of his higher officials. It is further stated in B2 that the assistant executive engineer has expressed a doubt about the anomaly in consumer meter and he had informed his doubt to the TMR division Pallom. On receiving the information TMR Pallom division had downloaded the meter data and filed report vide no. TMRP/oB24 inspection /18-19/798 stating that there is a fault in connection thereby caused reduced recording of the actual consumption. It is pertinent to note that neither in B2 nor in any document which are produced by the opposite party has not stated the date of inspection by the assistant Executive Engineer. However In B1, executive engineer of TM division has stated that testing unit has inspected the metering equipment on 08-2-2019 in pursuant to the e mail which was sent by the assistant executive engineer of the second opposite party on 25-1-2018. From these it is evident that the second opposite party has the knowledge of the alleged anomaly in recording of actual consumption on or before 25-1-2018 and he had inspected the premise either on that day or prior to that.
On perusal of exhibit A2 we can see that the short assessment bill for Rs.123592 was issued as per regulation 152(10) of the supply code 2014. In exhibit A1 it was stated by the opposite party that error in meter recording has been ascertained using standard reference meter and from the down loaded meter data and it is found that 37.5% of the total consumption was not being recorded and billed from 8/2014 to 2/2019 and afterward. It is further stated that a shortfall of billing for an amount of Rs.2,44025 was assessed for the entire period . It is further stated that the bill was revised for 24 months from 2/2017 to 2/2019 as
per regulation 152(3) of Supply code for an amount of Rs.123592 .
Section 113 of Kerala Electricity supply code 2014 deals with the testing of meter. Subsection (6) of section 113 provides that the licensee shall conduct periodical inspection or testing or both of the single phase meters once in every five years and Lt3 –phase meters once in every three years . Regulation 113(7) provides that whenever applicable,
Current Transfer(CT) and Potential Transformer(PT) and the wiring connection shall also be tested along with meters. Thus, the opposite parties are duty bound to inspect the 3 phase meter of the complainant in every three years.
Here in case in hand neither the complainant nor the opposite party has not disclosed either the date of installation of meter or previous date of inspection of the meter by the opposite party. There is no evidence before us to prove that the opposite party has conducted a periodical inspection of meter as provided in regulation 113(6) of the Electricity Supply code 2014 to find out whether there is any anomaly in recording the actual consumption of the complainant. The non
conducting of inspection and test of the 3 phase CT meter of the complainant within the statutory period amounts dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite parties .
Regulations 152 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014, which deals with Anomalies attributable to the Licensee and the said regulation
is extracted hereunder:-
Regulation 152. Anomalies attributable to the licensee which are detected at the premises of the consumer:- (1) Anomalies attributable to the licensee which are detected on inspection at the premises of the consumer, such as wrong application of multiplication factor, incorrect application of tariff by the licensee even while there is no change in the purpose of the use of electricity by the consumer and inaccuracies in metering shall not attract provisions of Section 126 of the Act or of Section 135 of the Act.
(2) In such cases, the amount of electricity charges short collected by the licensee, if any, shall only be realised from the consumer under normal tariff applicable to the period during which such anomalies persisted.
(3) The amount of electricity charges short collected for the entire period during which such anomalies persisted, may be realized by the licensee without any interest: Provided that, if the period of such short collection due to the anomalies is not known or cannot be reliably assessed, the period of assessment of such short collection of electricity charges shall be limited to twelve months:
Provided further, that while assessing the period of such short collection the factors as specified in sub regulation (8)of regulation 155 shall be considered:
Provided also that realisation of electricity charges short collected shall be limited for a maximum period of twenty four months, even if the period during which such anomaly persisted is found to be more than twenty four months.
(4) The consumer may be given installment facility by the licensee for a maximum period of twelve months for the remittance of such amount of short collection with interest at the bank rate as on the date of remittance of the amount of installment”.
There is no doubt that the opposite parties can realize the short collected electricity charges for the entire period during which the anomalies persisted. Proviso of regulation 152(3) provides that, if the period of such short collection due to the anomalies is not known or cannot be reliably assessed, the period of assessment of such short collection of electricity charges shall be limited to twelve months.
It is evident that there was dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite parties to conduct inspection of the meter of the complainant as provided in the statute. It is pertinent to not that the opposite parties has concealed the fact before this commission that on what basis they arrived at a conclusion that actual consumption of the complainant has not been recorded from 8/2014 onwards. On a close and thought full evaluation of the evidence on record we can see that without discharging their statutory duty the opposite party has come into a conclusion that the anomalies in recording actual consumption of the complainant has been started from 8/2014 onwards. The complainant cannot be penalized with a short assessment bill for a huge amount only on the basis of the surmise of the opposite parties. If the period of short collection due to the anomalies is not known or cannot be reliably assessed, the right of the opposite parties to short collection of electricity charges is limited to twelve month.
As discussed above Exhibit A1 issued for 24 months from 2/2017 to 2/2019. As per Proviso of regulation 152(3) of supply Code, the opposite parties have no right to issue a bill for 24 months. Act of the opposite parties in issuing a short assessment bill for 24 months against the provisions of the law amounts to dereliction of duty and amounts to deficiency in service. No doubt, the complainant has suffered much mental agony and hardship due to the deficient act of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate. Complainant is bound to pay the charges for the energy consumed by him.
Considering the nature and circumstance of the case we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
- We hereby set aside the bill no BB/NTKM/SA BILL/2018-19 dated 29-3-2019. It is made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to issue fresh bill in compliance with law without levying any penal charges or interest.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 11th day of May, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of notice No.BB/NTKM/SA Bill/2018-19/103 dtd.29-03-2019
A2 - Copy of short assessment bill for an amount of Rs.1,23,592/-
dtd.39-03-2019
A3 – Copy of revised calculation statement for two years
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Report dtd.14-02-2019
B2 – Mahazar dtd.20-02-2019 of con. No.10765
B3 – Report dtd.12-03-2019 of con. No.10765
B4 – Test certificate issued by opposite party
B5 – Consolidated statement of consumption of con. no.10765 before and after
site inspection on 20-02-2019
B6 - Copy of notice No.BB/NTKM/SA Bill/2018-19/ dtd.29-03-2019 and revised calculation statement for two years
By Order
Assistant Registrar
