IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2019
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
C C No. 95/2017 (filed on 05/04/17)
Petitioner : Manoj Babu,
S/o. K.K. Babu,
Kochuputhuveedu,
Kumarakom P.O.
Kottayam Dist. – 686563.
(Adv. V.V. Geetha)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Kerala State Electricity Board,
Rep. by Managing Director,
Vaidythi Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695001.
2) Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section, K.S.E.B.
Kumarakom – 686563. (Adv. Deepthy S. Nath)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S., President
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No.C1146302012652. On 13/12/2016 the opposite parties have issued a demand and disconnection notice to the complainant. In that disconnection notice, the opposite parties demanded payment of an amount of Rs.1,954/- as fixed charge, energy charge and duty. It is further demanded in that notice to pay Rs.4,825/- as dues. The complainant remitted the bill amount. On enquiry, it was informed to the complainant that the electronic meter of the complainant was faulty for some months and the bill was issued as per the audit report. The complainant did not made any default in payment of the electric bill amount till date. It is the duty of the opposite parties to verify the electric meter periodically and replace the damaged meter in proper time. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has suffered mental agony and hardship due to the illegal act of opposite party. Hence the complaint is filed for repayment of bill amount and compensation.
On receiving notice from this Forum, opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version jointly contenting as follows.
The meter of the complainant was faulty from 02/2011 and the same was replaced on 17/01/2013. The average unit of the consumption of the complainant was assessed as 150 units bimonthly. During the period, when the meter was faulty and the energy charge was levied from him on the basis of average units of consumption. The bimonthly consumption of 380 units as recorded after the replacement of the faulty meter. So the additional bill was issued to the complainant and the complainant paid the bill without any objection. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties. The complaint is filed on an experimental basis after the payment of bill amount.
The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. The 2nd opposite party is filed proof affidavit.
On the basis of the complaint, version, evidence and records, we would like to frame the following points to be considered.
- Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?
- Relief and cost?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider, Point No.1 and 2 together.
Point Nos. 1 and 2
There is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. Ext.A1 is the demand and disconnection notice issued under Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act by opposite party. On perusal of Ext.A1, we can see that the bill issued for the total sum of Rs.6,779/ including energy charge for the period of 14/10/2016 to 13/12/2016, an amount of Rs.4,825/- is also asked to be paid by the complainant in Ext.A1 bill for which the opposite party has not given any explanation in Ext.A1. On 07/01/2017, the complainant paid Rs.2,806/- to the opposite party vide Ext.A2 receipt and further on 09/01/2017. The complainant has paid Rs.4,820/- wide Ext.A3. The main contention raised by the opposite party is the meter of the complainant is that faulty from 09/11 to 07/01/2013 and additional bill was issued to the complainant for that period after taking the average consumption of the complainant. It is admitted by the opposite party that opposite party has replaced the faulty meter only on 17/01/2013. Regulation125 of the Kerala Supply Code says that,
- in the case of defective or damaged meter, the consumer shall be billed on the basis of an average consumption of the past three billing cycles immediately preceding the date of the meter being found or reported defective:
- Provided that, the average shall be computed from the three billing cycles after the meter is replaced if required details pertaining to previous billing cycles are not available.
Provided further that any evidence given by consumer about conditions
of working and occupancy of the concerned premises during the said
period, which might have had a bearing on energy consumption, shall
also be considered by the licensee for computing the average.
- Charges based on the average consumption as computed above shall be levied only for a maximum period of two billing cycles during which time the licensee shall replace the defective or damaged meter with a correct meter.
The meter reading of Regulation 125 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code
2014 shows that the opposite party shall issue a bill to the complainant on the basis of the average consumption of past 3 billing cycles. Immediately preceding the date of the meter being found or reported defective, Regulation provide that average shall be computed from 3 billing cycles after the meter is replaced, if required details pertaining to billing cycles are not available.
The respondents have issued the additional bill for the period of default of
the meter from period 2/2011 to 17/01/2013 on 13/02/2016. It seems that Ext.A1 bill was issued after a lapse of 2 years. As per the Regulation 136 (3), no such amount due from the consumer, on account of default in payment shall be recoverable after period of 2 years from the date, when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable arrear of charges for electricity supplied. In this case, the meter was faulty from 02/2011 to 17/01/2013. The bill was issued after the lapse of more than 2 years. As back arrears can be charged for 2 years only as per Regulation 136 (3), we are in the opinion that, opposite party has committed deficiency in service by issuing Ext.A1 bill for Rs.4,825/-.
In the circumstances, we allow the complaint and pass the following Orders.
- The opposite party is here by directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,825/- to the complainant or in alternative opposite parties are here by directed to adjust Rs.4,825/- towards future bill of the complainant as per law.
- The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,
corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2019.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 : Copy of disconnecting notice dtd.13/12/16 issued by 2nd op.
Ext.A2 : Copy of receipt dtd.07/01/17 for Rs.1960/- issued by 2nd op
Ext.A3 : Copy of receipt dtd.09/01/17 issued by 2nd op.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
