DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 20^th  day of May, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                   Date of Filing: 24/05/2017   

     CC/82/2017

A.M.Muhammed Subair,

S/o.Haneefa Rawthar,

Lotus Kalam House,

Nagarippuram P.O.,

Pathirippala, Palakkad.

(By Adv.T.U.Shaik Abdulla)                                                    -           Complainant

                                                                                      Vs

1.Kerala State Electricity Board,

   Rep.by Secretary,  Vydyuthi Bhavan,

   Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.Dy.Civil Engineer Officer,

   Vyduthi Bhavan, Palakkad

3.Asst.Engineer,

   Kerala State Electricity Board,

  Section Office, Pathirippala,

  Nagarippuram, Palakkad                                                      -           Opposite parties

(By Adv.Remika G)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1.         Abridged grievance of the complainant is that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party Board. He had been remitting his bills continuously and without any default or arrears.  The connection is to his shop room. During December 2015 the meter was replaced as the former one was showing defects. On 1/5/2017 the complainant received an additional bill for Rs.44,426/-. Out of the said amount Rs.36,078/- is seen to be arrears. Upon enquiry the opposite party informed him that the said amount was the arrears incurred by the complainant subsequent to December, 2015.

Eventhough the complainant informed the opposite parties that the meter showed enhanced reading due to increased usage and not due to any arrears, the opposite party did not rectify nor recall the bill for the arrears of Rs.36,078/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid demand for arrears of Rs.36,078/- as well as its non-recalling, the complaint is filed seeking to rectify the mistakes in the electricity bill dated 1/5/2017 and for incidental reliefs.

2. The opposite parties filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and contested the pleadings of the complainant. As per the opposite parties they changed the meter in the premises on 25/1/2016 after  detecting the fact that the meter to the said premises became faulty during the previous months. During inspections conducted by Regional Audit Officer, Palakkad, it was found that the average unit billed during the “meter faulty period” was far less than the actual consumption as arrived at from the corresponding figures during the succeeding months after the replacement of meter. The Regional Audit Officer, therefore, instructed the 3^rd opposite party to issue Short Assessment Bill for the energy that escaped billing due to defective meter. As per the direction, the 3^rd opposite party issued a short assessment bill for Rs.36,040/- as per Regulation 134 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code.  In the case of the complainant, the meter became faulty from 10/2015 and the meter started recording less from then onwards. Till the replacement of meter on 25/1/2016 the consumer was under-charged.  For this under-charging the opposite party issued the impugned bill for Rs.36,040/- in accordance with the statute.
3. The following issues arise for consideration  

1. Whether the issuance of Ext.A1 invoice for Rs.36,040/- is bad in the eye of law ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for ?
4. Any other reliefs ?

4. Evidence on the part of the complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A14. Evidence on the part of opposite parties comprised of proof affidavit and Ext.B1. No oral evidence was adduced by either parties.

 Issue No.1

5.   As per complaint pleadings, the complainant had been remitting the demand notices issued by opposite parties till 2017 without any demur or objection.  At the time of filing of the complaint he did not have any dispute with regard to change of the meter.  His only grievance is that the excess of Rs.36,078/- (Rs.36,040/- as per the opposite party) for the period covering 10/2015 to 2/2016 is illegal and is not in accordance with the statute.  That means he has concurred to the accuracy and correctness  of all the bills issued  post replacement of the meter.  Further he also has no case that the bills issued to him prior to 10/2015 were excessive and  illegal.

Hence, crux of the dispute lies in adjudicating whether the complainant has proved that Ext.A1 demand notice is  excessive and was issued in violation of statutes by way of cogent evidence.

6.  At the time of argument counsel for  the complainant argued that the opposite party Board failed to adhere to regulations prescribed in the Supply Code, 2014 while the meter was being replaced. This argument, in our view, is an afterthought  since the complainant, as per para one of the memorandum of complaint,   had been remitting bills without any complaint whatsoever from 2015 onwards.  It is also not the case of the complainant uptill argument  that  the replaced meter is faulty and hence excess bills were being issued to him.  His sole case in para 3 of the memorandum of complaint is that reading of meter  increased owing to increased usage.  So, we do not intend to dwell on this argument made in the argument note.

7.   Ext.A3 to A14 are a set of 12 invoices issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. In order to ascertain the extent of units consumed by the complainant we need to look into these 12 undisputed invoices.        

Incidentally, it is worthwhile to note that even though the complainant has produced 12 invoices to prove his case, he has not produced the bills for  5 months from 10/2015 till 2/2016 during which period  the opposite parties alleged that there was sluggishness in the meter.

8.   Ext.B1 is a communication issued  by the Regional Officer to the 3^rd opposite party. The contents of this communication deals with direction to initiate  stern steps so as to curb revenue loss and to safeguard realization of revenue of the Board.  The second item in schedule appended to Ext.B1 (Annexure 7) pertains to consumer No.14665 which is the consumer no. of the complainant.  The complaint of the meter is shown as “sluggish” for the period covering 10/2015 to 2/2016.  The entries therein shows that the average unit consumption of the establishment of the complainant to be 1025 units. For that an amount of Rs.36,040/- is levied.

The complainant had no objections whatsoever in marking Ext.B1 document. The complainant has not sought for examining any officials of opposite party to challenge the veracity and tenability of Ext.B1.  No contra evidence to disprove Ext.B1 was  forthcoming.

Hence, in the absence of any evidence on the part of complainant to prove that Ext.B1 is illegal, it is only reasonable to conclude that Ext.A1 was issued in accordance with the general audit conducted in KSEB.   

 We are, therefore, constrained to believe the case of the opposite parties evidenced by Ext.B1 document.

9. The next question that is to be considered is whether issuance of the bill is in accordance with the provisions of statute. In their version the opposite parties has sought  recourse to Regulation 134 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 which reads as herein below: (relevant portion only)

      “Regulation 134 : Under charged bills and over charged bills ;- (1) If the licensee establishes either by review or otherwise, that it has under charged the consumer, the licensee may recover the amount so under charged from the consumer by issuing a bill and in such cases at least 30 days shall be given to the consumer for making payments of the bill”.

      The complainant has made no attempts to assail the actions taken by the opposite parties under the  aforesaid provision of the Code and prove his case.  

10. As already stated supra, the only conclusion that we can arrive at from the aforesaid discussion is that Ext.A1 is a short assessment bill issued in accordance with Regulations 124 &134 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 and there no illegality whatsoever .  

 Issue No.2  

11.   In view of the finding in issue No.1, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Issue Nos. 3 & 4

12. Resultantly we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.  

      In the above readings, this complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th  day of May, 2022.

                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                   Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

        Sd/-  

    Vidya.A

                        Member   

                              Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  – Invoice dated 27/4/2017 for Rs.36040/-   

Ext.A2 – Indecipherable  Invoice dated 1/5/2017    

 Ext.A3 – Invoice dated 04/08/2015 for Rs.7359/-    

Ext.A4 – Invoice dated 07/09/2015 for Rs.10510/-

Ext.A5 – Invoice dated 01/04/2016 for Rs.11611/-

Ext.A6 – Invoice dated 5/5/2016 for Rs.16406/-

Ext.A7 – Invoice dated 04/07/2016 for Rs.8082/-

Ext.A8 – Invoice dated 04/08/2016 for Rs.9498/- 

Ext.A9 – Invoice dated 03/09/2016 for Rs.9347/-

Ext.A10 – Invoice dated 03/10/2016 for Rs.13529/-

Ext.A11 – Invoice dated 04/02/2015 for Rs.5577/-

Ext.A12 – Invoice dated 07/03/2015 for Rs.5743/-

Ext.A13 – Invoice dated 07/04/2015 for Rs.4654/-

Ext.A14 – Invoice dated 04/05/2015 for Rs.5078/-

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 – Relevant portion of detailed report on general audit alongwith  covering letter

               dated 13/2/2017.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost – No cost allowed.

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.