Dated this the 22^nd day of May  2013

 

Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

Dr.George.T.Ninan,

Theradappuzha House,

Kunnathurmedu (PO),

Palakkad - 678 013                                        -        Complainant

(By Adv.B.Ravikumar)

V/s

 

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Rep.by Assistant Executive Engineer,

Sulthanpet Section,

Palakkad.                                                       -   Opposite party

(By Adv.T.Reena)    

       

          By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

 

The complainant is  a consumer of opposite party with consumer No.9327 with a three phase domestic connection. Also he is a practicing doctor at Palakkad. The complainant used to pay all the bills within time.   The amount due as per the bill vary from month to month depending on the usage of the power from Rs.3,400/- to Rs.8,000/-. On 17/4/12 the opposite party had issued a bill with an endorsement in the bill that “No phase”.But it is very clear from the bill itself that the previous reading of the meter was 56431 and the reading on 17/4/12 was 56950 showing a consumption of 528 units. As per the bill the complainant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,426/- for 980 units of electricity. In fact he has not used 980 units of electricity during that period. The complainant had paid the entire amount as demanded in the bill under protest. Thereafter the electric meter was changed on 20/4/12 and a new meter was installed. The next bill for Rs.22,321/- dated 4/6/12 was for the two months. Whereas the average consumption were admittedly 980 units. Either the starting meter reading might have been wrong or the working of the meter was not proper. The complainant paid the amount. The complainant had paid all the bills under protest. On 30/01/13 the complainant was served with another bill for an amount of Rs.19,714/-. As per the same “the bill was a back assessment bill from 12/11 to 4/12 for suspected fault of meter”. The bill is unreasonable and without any basis what so ever. The meter was working and no defect was noticed in the next billings. The opposite party has no case that the meter was faulty during 12^th November to 4^th December. No inspection was done at that time. The bill issued is only on the basis of the assumption that the meter might have been faulty which is baseless.

 

The less usage of electricity is to be considered as saving of power and not that the meter is fault. No notice was given to the complainant for the assessment before issuing such a bill. The issuance of additional  bill without any basis has caused serious prejudice and mental agony to the complainant which cannot be compensated by money. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to

1.    Cancel the bill No.474034 dated 30/1/13 for an amount of Rs.19,917/-

2.    Pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation

3.    Pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. It is true that the complainant is a consumer of opposite party with consumer No.9327 with a three phase domestic connection. On 17/4/12 while taking the meter reading the spot biller found that the consumption recorded in the meter is 528 units, which were very less compared to the previous recordings. Then he checked the meter and found that there was no pulse indication in the meter which means that the meter is not recording consumption. This fact was recorded in the spot bill as “no pulse” which the complainant has wrongly interpreted as “no phase”.

Since the meter was found faulty, the meter reader issued the bill after calculating the previous 6 months average, which was found to be 980 units. The claim of the complainant that he has not used 980 units of electricity is false and fabricated for the case. This can be verified by examining the consumption pattern of consumer No. 9327 for the past 3 years. On verification the months of 12/11, 2/12 and 4/12 the average bimonthly consumption of consumer No.9327 is 2176units. The faulty meter was replaced on 20/4/12 itself. On 14/6/12 while taking the next spot bill reading, the consumption was recorded as 3040 units. There is nothing wrong  in the meter reading or in the initial reading which was clearly recorded in the meter changing register and in the billing software. As per section 33(2) of KSEB Terms and conditions of supply 2005 if the Board is unable to raise a bill on meter reading due to its non recording or malfunctioning the Board shall issue a bill based on the previous 6 months average consumption. In this case the consumption for the month of 8/12 (1660 units), 10/12 (1775 units) and 12/12 (2540 units) were taken and the average bimonthly consumption is 1992 units. Based on this average a short assessment bill for the period from 10/11 to 4/12 was issued for Rs.19,714/-. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

Both parties filed their affidavits. Ext.A1 to A11 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite party.  Matter heard.

 

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

 

We perused relevant documents on record. According to the complainant on 17/4/2012 the opposite party had issued a bill with an endorsement in the bill that “No phase”. But the opposite party stated that while taking the meter reading on 17/4/12 the spot biller found that there was no pulse indication in the meter which means that the meter is not recording consumption. This fact was recorded in the spot bill as no pulse, which the complainant has wrongly interpreted as “no phase”. Ext.A6 dated 17/4/2012 copy of bill shown that “No phase” mentioned by opposite party. Moreover the opposite party has not produced evidence to show that the meter was faulty. According to opposite party there was no pulse indication in the meter which means that the meter is not recording consumption.

In the present case the present meter reading on 17/4/12 was 56950 and prior reading was 56431. In Ext.A5 the present meter reading on 15/2/12 was 56431 and prior reading was 55464. According to the opposite party they replaced the faulty meter on 20/4/2012 mentioned in Ext.A7. On verification of the consumption pattern of consumer No.9327 the period from 10/11 – 1161 units, 12/11 – 812 units, 2/12 – 967 units, 4/12 – 528 units. It show that from 10/11 to 4/12 the consumption of complainant was very low. In Ext.A6 the complainant paid Rs.4,426/- for 980 units. The complainant was not examined by opposite party.

On verification of consumption on  1/2010 the complainant used 2355 units, 3/2010 – 2356 units, 5/10 – 3074 units. But on 7/10 – 1993, 9/10 – 1383 units, 11/10 – 1399 units. So the variations of units were seen in the consumption pattern. According to the complainant there is no finding as to any fault of meter for any of the previous periods. The complainant stated that the low consumption recorded in the meter for the period from August 2011 to February 2012 is due to less usage of electricity at his house. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party.

According to the opposite party, the reassessment of faulty meters shall be done for the whole period in which meter was faulty. In the present case the opposite party has not produced evidence to show that the meter was faulty. The replaced meter was not produced. Only the consumption variations assessed and replaced the meter. In section 27(6) of the Kerala Electricity  Supply Code states that if it appears to the Licensee that the metering equipment provided for supplying electricity to the consumer is defective, the licensee must test the metering equipment and repair and replace the metering equipment, as the case may be. The opposite party has not produced evidence to show that the metering equipment tested and found defective. The opposite party issued the disputed bill without complying the provisions of law.

As per the order in I.A. 35B/2013 the complainant paid Rs.6500/- as the 1/3^rd of the bill amount dated 30/1/2013 for an amount of Rs.19,714/-. The complainant filed I.A. 35B/13 for restraining the opposite party from proceeding with the recovery of the bill amount pending disposal of the case.

We are of the considered view that the disputed bill dated 30/01/13 for Rs.19,714/- was issued by the opposite party on the allegation that meter is faulty. The opposite party stated that there was no pulse indication in the meter and it  is not  recording the energy consumption. In the case of meter faulty it is to be referred and reported to the Electrical Inspector which was not done in this case. The opposite party has no case that previous 6 months consumption cannot be taken due to meter ceasing  to record the consumption. Without declaring the meter as faulty the opposite party issuing the bill dated 30/01/13 for an amount of Rs.19,714/- is to be cancelled.  

 

Mere statement of opposite party to the meter faulty is not considered as evidence. No documentary evidence is produced by the opposite party to show that the meter of the complainant was no pulse.

 

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result complaint allowed. We direct the opposite party to cancel the bill dated 30/01/13 for an amount of Rs.19,714/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand seven hundred and fourteen only) and pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only)  as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party directed to adjust the amount of Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six thousand five hundred only) paid by the complainant as per the order in I.A.35B/13 to future bills.

 

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 22^nd  day of May 2013.    

    Sd/-

Seena H

President

Preetha G Nair

Member  

Ext.A1 – Bill dated 15/6/11 for Rs.15,179/- issued by the opposite party to the

Ext.A2 – Bill dated 16/8/11 for Rs.8,338/- issued by the opposite party to the

Ext.A3 – Bill dated 15/10/11 for Rs.5,329/- issued by the opposite party to the

Ext.A4 – Bill dated 16/12/11 for Rs.3,434/- issued by the opposite party to the

Ext.A5 – Bill dated 15/2/12 for Rs.4,372/- issued by the opposite party to the

Ext.A6 – Bill dated 17/4/12 for Rs.4,426/- issued by the opposite party to the

Ext.A7 – Bill dated 14/6/12 for Rs.22,321/- issued by the opposite party to the

Ext.A8 – Bill dated 14/8/12 for Rs.8,523/- issued by the opposite party to the

Ext.A9 – Bill dated 13/10/12 for Rs.16,080/- issued by the opposite party to the

Ext.A10 – Bill dated 14/12/12 for Rs.18,827/- issued by the opposite party to

Ext.A11 – Bill dated 30/01/13 for Rs.19,174/- issued by the opposite party to

Ext.B1 – Photocopy of Order No.B.O.(FM)793/2009(DPC.II/Replacement of

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.