IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 51/2019 (filed on 24-04-2019)
Petitioner : Sulabha Hyper Market,
A registered private limited
Company,
Kattakkayam Road, Pala,
Kottayam,
Rep. by its General Manager.
(Adv. Josekutty Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : (1) The Special Officer (Revenue)
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.
Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram – 698 004.
(2) The Assistant Executive Engineer
(Meter) Elelcltricity Board,
TMR Division, Pallom, Kottayam.
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. Deepthy S. Nath)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2022
Crux of the complaint is as follows:
Complainant company is a HTIV(Commercial) consumer having consumer no. 1356240001832 of opposite parties. While using the electricity and paying bills regularly by the complainant on 6-6-2018 the second opposite party informed that the meter was faulty and directed the complainant to change faulty equipments at the earliest. Consequently, the complainant sought four months time to change the faulty CIPT and TOD meter and changed it during October 2018. During July, August, September, October and November 2018 when the metre was faulty the opposite party charged Rs.2,81,850/-, Rs.2,84,832/- ,Rs.2,87,692/-, Rs.2,87,844/- and Rs.2,91,375/- respectively as electricity charges from complainant. It is submitted in the complaint that previous six months average consumption of electricity by the complainant was Rs.1,92,910/-. It is further averred in the complaint that even after changing the faulty meter the average bills of complaint is of Rs.1,99,094/-. According to the complainant, the opposite party is unable to raise a bill due to the faulty meter reading due to its non -recording or malfunctioning, the opposite party shall issue a bill based on the previous six months average consumption. The opposite party illegally and unauthorized by imposed and received excess charge of Rs.4,69,043/- from the complainant as penalty and in the month of August 2018 , the opposite parties imposed Rs.28,215/- as undisputed arrear charges from the complainant. In spite of receipt of notice issued by the complainant on 15-12-2018 the opposite party did not pay back the amount. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,97,258/- with 9% interest till realization.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed joint version contending as follows:
The complainant is a HTIV- commercial consumer under the opposite parties and is not a consumer under the provisions of the consumer protection act. The officials of the T.M..R Division Pallam inspected the HT metering equipments of the petitioner on 6-6-2018 and found the meter faulty. Subsequently the Deputy chief Engineer, Electrical Circle Pala vide letter dated 8-6-2018 requested the petitioner to replace the faulty meter with a new one having the required specifications within 15 days. As per the provisions of the general condition of Tariff order dated 21-4-2017 , if a meter gets faulty , the consumer should replace the same within two months, if the consumer vide agreement has opted to purchase and supply meter for replacement of the defective meter in his premises. Hence, the complainant cannot avail a period exceeding two months to replace the faulty meter in his premises. As such the complainant should have to replace the faulty meter within 8-8-2018. The opposite party imposed Rs.4,49,842/- as penalty for the faulty meter on the petitioner for the period from 5-7-2018 to 7-11-2018.
Subsequent to the inspection conducted on 6-6-2018, data was downloaded from the faulty meter and it was found that meter was faulty with effect from 17-5-2018. In view of the data as well as the provisions of the Tariff order and relevant provisions of the Supply code 2014 , the first respondent revised the penalty for faulty meter and amount of Rs.1,86,697/- collected in excess from the consumer shall be adjusted against the ensuing bill itself. As per letter dated 18-7-2019 the complainant has been intimated that an excess amount of Rs.1,86,697/- collected on account of penalty for faulty meter would be adjusted forth coming bills of the consumer. It is further submitted in the version that if the complainant had replaced the faulty meter within the period stipulated in the Tariff order 2017, penalty would not have been imposed on the consumer.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1 to A9. First opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked exhibit B1 to B7 from the side of the opposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs and costs?
Point number 1 to 2 together
There is no dispute on the fact the complainant company is a HTIV consumer having consumer no. 1356240001832 of opposite parties. Assistant Executive Engineer (Meter) TMR division Pallom inspected the complainant’s meter on 6-6-2018 and found that the meter was faulty. Exhibit A2 is the letter issue by the Assistant Executive Engineer (meter) to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Pala. In Exhibit A2 Assistant Executive engineer directed the Assistant Engineer Pala to give necessary direction to the complainant to change the meter and re-test he TOD meter at TMR Pallam meter testing lab at the earliest. After that the opposite parties issued exhibit B3 notice dated 8-6-2018directing the complainant to replace the faulty meter within 15 days.
Thereafter the first opposite party issued exhibit A3 bills to the complainant. On perusal of Exhibit B5(d) which is the bill issued on 5-7-2018 we can see that the said bill for an amount of Rs.2,21,928/- including Rs.89,113/- as penalty for meter fault. Exhibit B5(c) is the bill for the month of August 2018 for Rs.3,13,047/- including Rs.89,932/- as penalty for meter faulty. On a mere reading of Exhibit B5 (b) we can that the said bill of the month of September 2018 including the penalty of Rs.89,932/- and the total bill amount was for Rs.2,87,784/-. Ongoing through exhibit B5(a) which is the bill for the month of October 2018 we can see that the same was for Rs.2,87,844/- including the penalty for meter fault of Rs.89,932/-. On perusal of exhibit B5 which is the bill for the month of November 2018 we can see that the total bill amount was Rs.2,91,375/- which includes the penalty of Rs.90,932/- for the faulty meter.
Admittedly on the receipt of B3 notice the complainant sought four months time for replacing the defective mater with new meter and the same was replaced in the month of October 2018.
Opposite parties contented that as per the provisions of the general condition of Tariff order dated 21-4-2017 , if a meter gets faulty , the consumer should replace the same within two months, if the consumer vide agreement has opted to purchase and supply meter for replacement of the defective meter in his premises. The general conditions for HT and EHT tariff under para 4 (d) of part B is marked as exhibit B4.
The general conditions for HT and EHT tariff under para 4 (d) of part B provides that “if any existing consumer, having elected to purchase and supply the meter for replacement of the defective meter in his premises, fails to do so within two months, such consumer will, be charged 50% extra over the prevailing rates applicable to him for both demand and energy for the said two months and one month thereafter." This provision never insists the installation of the meter within two months from the date of receipt of the communication from the licensee, but the consumer has to purchase and supply the meter within two months. Any delay caused beyond the two months for testing, calibrating, sealing and installing the meter by the licensee is not the liability of the consumer. It is pertinent to note that provision only empower the licensee to charge 50% extra over the prevailing rates applicable to the consumer for both demand and energy for the said two months and one month thereafter. Thus it is clear from exhibit B4 tariff order that if the consumer fails to replace defective meter within two months the consumer is liable to pay 50% extra over the prevailing rates applicable to the consumer for both demand and energy for 3 months only.
In case on hand admittedly the opposite parties has levied the penalty for meter faulty from the month of July to November 2018 from the complainant. As discussed above the opposite parties are at liberty to levy the penalty for meter faulty only for three months i.e. from July to September. The opposite parties received a total sum of Rs.4,49,841/- (89113+89,932+89,932+89,932+90932) where as they are entitled only for Rs.2,68,977/- (89,113+89,932+89,932). Hence it is clear from the evidence that the opposite parties had received an amount of Rs.1,80,864/- in excess than the amount for which the opposite parties are entitled. Admittedly Rs.1,86,697/- was refunded to the complainant by adjusting in the bill of December 2018.
On perusal of demand notice for the month of August 2018 which is attached to the exhibitA3 bills there was an entry as undisputed arrear amount. The same was for Rs.28,215/-. It is pertinent to not that in the demand notice for the month of July issued to the complainant which is annexed to the Exhibit A3 bills it was recorded that undisputed arrear amount as zero. But neither in version nor in the proof affidavit the opposite parties gave any explanation for the same. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite parties had illegally levied the Rs.28,215/- from the complainant as undisputed arrears for which they are not entitled.
Thus we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by charging Rs.28,215/- from the complainant as undisputed arrears without proper explanation.
In the result we allow the complaint in part and pass the following order.
We hereby direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.28,215/- along with 9% interest from 24-4-2019 i.e the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of September, 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 – True copy of the resolution passed in the Board of Directors meeting held
on 19-02-2019 at the Head office of the company.
A2 – Copy of letter dtd.06-06-18 by 2nd opposite party to the AE, Electrical
Section, Pala.
A3 – Copy of bills issued by opposite party
A4 – Copy of receipt dtd.23-06-18 for Rs.1,91,574/- issued by 1st opposite party
A5 –Copy of bills issued by opposite party
A6 – Copy of notice dtd.14-12-18 by complainant to 1st opposite party
A7 – Postal receipt
A8 – Postal acknowledgement card
A9 – Copy of bill issued by opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of inspection report dtd.06-06-18
B2 – Copy of energy trend
B3 – Copy of notice dtd.08-06-18 issued by opposite party to complainant
B4 – Copy of Order dtd.21-04-17 published in Kerala Gazatte
B5 series - Copy of bills issued by opposite party (5 nos.)
B6 – Copy of bill issued by opposite party
B7 – Calculation of penalty for non replacement of faulty meter as per General Condition 4(d), Para B, Tariff Order dtd.21-04-17
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
