DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of April 2009.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member) C.C.No.135/2007
1. T.A. Abdul Basheer Manchira Chittur Post Palakkad. (Adv K.A. Abdul Salam) 2. Crysstelpet & Allied Industries Manchira Chittur Post Palakkad By its Manager T.A. Salim Ahamed - Complainants (Adv. K.A. Abdul Salam ) V/s
1. Kerala State Electricity Board Vydhuthi Bhavan Thiruvananthapuram Rep. By its Secretary (Adv. ) 2. The Executive Engineer Kerala State Electricity Board Electrical Division Chittur (P.O) Palakkad (Adv. L. Namassivayan) 3. The Assistant Engineer Electrical Section Kerala State Electricity Board Chittur Palakkad - Opposite Parties ( Adv L. Namassivayan )
O R D E R By Smt. H. Seena, President The case of the complainant in brief is as follows.
Complainant No.1 is the owner of the tiled building No.1/518 in Manchira, Chittur, Palakkad with consumer No.3473, 2nd complainant is the son of complainant No.1. 2nd complainant started a pet bottle unit exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. For this unit, the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board is availed. Monthly bills issued by the - 2 - Opposite parties were paid by the complainant without any default. Kerala state Electricity Board as well as Anti-power Theft Squad used to conduct periodical inspection. There was no complaint at any point of time. During the year 2003-2005, very little orders were received. But the unit could secure more orders in the year 2006. Complainants were orally told from the office of the 3rd opposite party that in June 2006, a team of Anti-power Theft Squad inspected the metre of the unit. New meter was installed without verifying or testing the existing metre. There after the 3rd Opposite party issued a bill for Rs.4,29,364/- under the cover of energy escaped assessment after a long period complainants were assessed from 12/2002 to 5/2006 (42 months) right from the inception of service connection. Without the inspection report of the Electrical Inspector neither Anti-power Theft Squad nor the 3rd respondent has authority to quantify or assess energy charges. In the instant case, demand notice has been issued without the meter being checked by Electrical Inspectors and assessing the charge under S 26 of the Electricity Act. Hence the demand notice is illegal and unsustainable. Further there is gross negligence on the part of the Opposite party in not repairing or curing the defect if any of the electric meter within the warranty period if they allege that the meter was defective at the time of inspection. It is obligatory on the part of the Opposite parties to take immediate steps to replace the meter instead of waiting from December 2002 till May 2006. There is also no provision to make any escaped assessment from 12/2002 to 5/2006. There is no allegation that theft of energy was made or meter was tampered by the complainants. According to the complainants, the actions of the Opposite parties are highly illegal, arbitrary, malafide in nature unjust and unreasonable and caused mental agony, strain injury and hardship and heavy loss to the complainants and hence they are entitled to get compensation and damages.
Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. The Inter Division Squad of the Kerala State Electricity Board conducted a surprise inspection of 19 various consumers and inspected the premises of the complainant on26.05.2006. They detected that the energy meter connected to the service connection is running sluggishly and the recorded consumption is much less. The squad directed to change the energy meter. After the change, it was found that the actual consumption is much higher than that of the previous months. But the Opposite parties omitted to issue short assessment bill as per the provisions of the “regulations relating to conditions of supply of electric energys”. When the Audit wing of the principal Accountant General, Thiruvanathapuram noticed the said omission, they issued direction in their audit report for the year 2005-2006 to issue short assessment bill for 42 months from 12/2002 to 5/2006 at an average of 4382 units per month which is 184044 unit. From this the already assessed units of 62237 is deducted and the short assessment of 121807 units is calculated - 3 - and accordingly. Short assessment bill for Rs.4,29,364/- is issued to the consumer. According to the Opposite party, as per Section 145 of the Electricity Act complaint is expressly barred as the complainant has not exhausted the remedies under Act. The complainant is also not maintainable for the reason that the subject matters is of manufacturing and trade and business and hence the forum is not competent to entertain the complaint.
Further the complainants are making payments according to the consumption recorded in the changed meter and there is no complaint regarding the same and hence the case of the Opposite party that the earlier changed meter was running sluggishly is true. The necessity for inspecting the meter by the electrical inspectorate did not arise since the consumer accepted the readings in the changed meter and paid the bills without any objection. Sec 45 of the Act empower the Board to recover charges for electricity supplied.
Complainant filed affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A7 marked. Opposite party filed affidavit. Exhibit B1 to B6 marked The issued for consideration are: Whether Opposite parties committed deficiency of service ? If so what is the reliefs and costs?
Point No.1
The definite case of the complainant is that bill issued by opposite parties for an amount of Rs.4,29,364/- under the cover of energy escaped assessment is illegal and unsustainable. Complainant was assessed from December 2002 to May 2006, ie, for a period of 42 months. According to Opposite parties the Inter Division Squad of Kerala State Electricity Board conducted a surprise inspection and found that meter connected was running sluggishly and the recorded consumption is much less. Board directed to change the meter and after change it was found that the consumption was much higher than that of previous months. But the Opposite parties omitted to issue short assessment bill to the complainant. There after when the Audit wing of the Principal Accountant General, Thiruvanathapuram, noticed the above omission. They directed to issue short assessment bill for 42 months from December 2002 to May 2006.
Complainant has stated that Anti-power Theft Squad made a surprise inspection at the complainants premises on 06/09/2005 and no irregularity was noticed in the meter at the time of inspection. According to the Opposite parties no inspection was made at any point of time. But it is - 4 - evident from Exhibit A1 that the meter was not sluggish or faulty till 06/09/2005. From the this point alone it can be understood that the energy escaped assessment from 2002 to 2006 is without any basis. Further it cannot be concluded that the old meter is faulty simply because the replace meter recorded higher consumption. Opposite parties ought to have tested the meter as per the provisions of Electricity Act 2003. Complainant has already paid the electricity bills for the period without any default. Hence it is not proper on the part of the opposite parties to issue bills for the same period.
From the foregoing discussions we are of the view that Exhibit A2 bill issued is without any legal basis and therefore is to be set aside.
In the result complaint is allowed and we order the following.
Exhibit A2- bill dated 21.03.07 shall stand cancelled Opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and injury and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of April 2009
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Letter from the Public Information Officer, APTS, KSEB, IB, Palakkad Ext. A2 - Short Assessment Bill during the period from 12/02 to 5/06 issued by KSEB dt.21/03/07 Ext A3 - Letter from T.A. Abdul Basheer to Executive Engineer, KSEB, Chittur. - 5 -
4. Ext A4 - Letter issued by the Asst. engineer,KSEB, Chittur to Abdul Basheer 5. Ext. A5 – Letter from Asst. Exe. Engineer, Koduvayur to the Asst. Engineer, Chittur 6. Ext. A6 - KSEB Bill details from April 2003 to December 2007. of Consumer NO.3473 7. Ext. A 7 – Letter form Hema Compressor Care to T A Abdul Basheer
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Ext. B1 – Letter from Executive Engineer, KSEB, Chittur, to the Asst. Enginner, Electrical Section, Chittur Ext. B2 - Reading Bill of Asst engineer, Electrical section, KSEB, Chittur Ext. B3 – Letter from Executive Engineer, Chittur Ext. B4 – Letter from Asst. Exe. Engineer to The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Chittur Ext. B5 – Circular from KESB, Thiruvananthapuram dt.31.10.07 Ext. B6 – Letter from T.A. Abdul Basheer to The Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Chittur
Forums Exhibits Nil Cost (allowed) Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings)
Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
