A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a consumer with consumer No. 55400008236. The complainant is paying electricity bill regularly and for the period from November 2007 to March 2008, the following payments had been made:
Sl No. | Bill No. and date | Amount Rs. |
1 | R 5540 R 554000162346 dated 15/11/2007 | 66,607.00 |
2 | R 55400167610 dated 15/12/2007 | 84,119.00 |
3 | R 55400173219 dated 15/01/2008 | 48,379.00 |
4 | R 55400177206 dated 15/02/2008 | 76,818.00 |
5 | R 55400182441 dated 15-03-2008 | 78,641.00 |
While so the complainant received a Demand Notice dated 15-01-2008 for Rs. 1,80,694/- towards additional charges for the said period on the plea of meter not recording actual consumption. Apprehending disconnection, the complainant remitted the entire amount of Rs. 1,80,694/- as per the aforesaid demand notice under protest as per letter dated 07-06-2008. The Officials of the opposite party inspect the meter and take readings on monthly basis, for which they charge inspection fees in their monthly bills. On the failure on the part of the opposite party to detect and rectify the defects in the meter, the complainant can not be penalized. The malfunctioning of the meter was alleged to have been detected only on 12-05-2008 but additional charges are levied from November 2007 onwards in an arbitrary manner, which is highly illegal. Moreover, the basis for coming to the conclusion that out of the total energy consumption of the complainant only two-third is recorded in the meter and one-third has gone unrecorded is arbitrary. Contrary to the conclusion that one-third consumption has gone unrecorded, in the additional bill given by the opposite party they have charged 50% of the total consumption, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.
Thus the complainant is before us with the following reliefs.
a) call for the records leading to issue the impugned bill and to quash the same
b) direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 1,80,694/- deposited under protest towards additional charges on the plea of faulty meter.
2. Version filed by the opposite party is as follows:
The complainant is a consumer of Electricity under LT VI C tariff with connected load of 71 KW and CT operated meter is installed for recording consumption. On 12-05-2008 Anti Power Theft Squad unit of KSEBoad inspected the Energy Meter in the premises of Canara Bank and found that one phase of the 3 phase CT operated energy meter was not recoding the consumption. Hence, the consumer was reassessed for the unrecorded portion of energy for the previous Six months at normal rate. Accordingly a bill for Rs. 1,80,694/- being one-half of the recorded consumption to make good the unrecorded portion of energy was served to the complainant on 14-05-2008. There is no factual error in reckoning the unrecorded consumption. The complainant mistook the short assessment bill served by the Board as a penal bill. Only the charge for unrecorded portion of energy was levied. As the complainant is bound to remit the bill, the same was remitted by the complainant. The action of Board’s officials are based on the rules under statute. If any order restraining the Board from collecting its revenue arrears is issued by the Hon’ble Forum, it will affect the financial stability of the Board which runs on public money. The Board has every right to realize the amount covered in the bill. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Board. There is no cause of action and the relief sought for cannot be allowed. Opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties
4. The points that came up for consideration are.
i. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the provisions of the C.P. Act. ?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the impugned bill set aside?
iii. Whether the opposite party is liable to refund Rs. 1,80,694/- to the complainant?
iv. Costs of the proceedings.
5. Point No. i. At the outset the opposite party challenged the maintainability of the complaint in I.A. No. 311/09, the order in this I.A. has been kept in abeyance to be considered at the time of disposal of this complaint. According to the opposite party the service availed by the complainant is for commercial purpose and the complaint is not a consumer under the provisions of Section 2 (i) (d) of the C.P. Act. On the contrary the complainant contented that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka power Transmission Corporation and Another Vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited (2009) 3 SCC 214. In view of the above Supreme Authority we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable in this Forum.
6. Points Nos. ii & iii. The contention of the opposite party is that only 2/3 of the consumption alone was recorded and 1/3 was unrecorded. According to the complainant the issuance of the disputed bill based on the faulty meter is arbitrary and illegal. The opposite party stated in their version that on 12-05-2008 the Anti Power Theft Squard of KSEB inspected the energy meter of the complainant and found that one phase of the 3 phase CT operated energy meter was not recording the consumption. So the consumer was reassessed for the unrecorded portion of the energy for the previous 6 months at normal rate and the disputed bill was issued to the complainant.
7. Admittedly the impugned bill has been issued by the opposite party based on the presumption that the meter of the complainant has recorded only 2/3 of the actual consumption. Evidently there is nothing before us to contradict the claim of the complainant that the opposite party has failed to bring forth cogent evidence to substantiate this contention. The opposite party ought to have erected a defect free meter and assessed the actual consumption of the electricity and then alone issued Ext. A6 where in they failed. Seemingly they unilaterally issued the impugned bill on the basis of Ext. B1 mahazar. The Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in The Asst. Engineer and Another Vs. The Secretary, Manjoor Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham (Appeal No. 533/2005 and 534/2005, decided on 19-05-2010) held that “We do not find any supporting evidence to show that only one phase was recording consumption. The Forum below had cancelled the said bill finding that there was no evidence to show that the meter was recording only one third of the consumption. The appellants have failed in producing any record to show that the meter was recording only one of its phases and the other two phases were not recording. In the absence of evidence we are not inclined to uphold the impugned bill for Rs. 28,975/- and the said direction of the Forum below to cancel Ext. A6 is only to be upheld”. In reiteration we hold that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill .
8. Now the question arises how the consumption of electricity of the complainant is quantified as per statute Regulation 42 (3) of the KSE Board terms and conditions of supply 2005 reads as follows:
(3) The consumer may report any complaint regarding meter to the concerned Electrical Section. The inspection of the meter will be carried out, using the standard reference meter (Single Phase/three Phase) available in the Section office which is tested, calibrated and sealed by the Eletrical Inspctorate. If meter is found faulty such meters shall be replaced immediately at the expense of the Board. If the existing meter after having found faulty is replaced with a new one, the consumption recorded during the period in which the meter was faulty shall be reassessed based on the average consumption for the previous six months prior to replacement of meter. If the average consumption for the previous six months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason, the consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding six months after replacement of meter and excess claimed if any, shall be adjusted in the future current charge bill.”
9. Both the parties failed to produce enough evidence to prove that whether the very same meter is used by the opposite party or after the preparation of Ext. B1 mahazar whether they have replaced the same. In the absence of such an evidence we are only to hold that the defective meter should be replaced instead of the one in the premises of the complainant. Therefore we think that a direction to the opposite party to issue a bill based on the meter reading in the succeeding six months after replacement of meter under Regulation 42 (3) of the KSE Board terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
10. In view of the above we pass the following order.
i. We set aside Ext. A6 notice dated 13-05-2008.
ii. The opposite party shall issue a fresh bill under
Regulation 42(3) as observed above.
iii the complainant shall take steps to replace the electric meter under dispute.
iv. the amount remitted by the complainant under protest
v. shall be adjusted properly in the arrear bill to be issued to
the complainant.
vi. No order as to costs.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period stipulated above from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2011
