IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 14th day of September, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 17/2020 (Filed on 20-01-2020)
Petitioner : (1) Thomas Joseph,
S/o. late Jose Thomas,
Jathikulathi House,
Pattithanam P.O.
Ettumanoor.
(2) Elsamma Thomas,
S/o. late Jose Thomas,
Jathikulathi House,
Pattithanam P.O.
Ettumanoor.
(3) Ancy J.J.
D/o. late Jose Thomas,
Jathikulathi House,
Pattithanam P.O.
Ettumanoor.
(Adv. Raju Abraham)
Vs.
Opposite party : (1) Kerala State Electiricy Board
Rep. by its Secretary,
Vaidhyuthi Bhavan
Thiruvananthapuram.
(2) Assistant Enginner,
Electrical Section,
KSEB, Ettumanoor.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,
Case of the complainant is as follows,
Complainants are the legal heirs of late Jose Thomas who is the consumer of opposite party vide consumer no.114642004900. On 18-11-2019 the complainant has received a bill for Rs.7,086/- and it was timely questioned by the complainant. The opposite party withdraw the said bill and the same was cancelled and had issued another bill for Rs.2,510/-. The said bill amount was paid by the complainant with protest and a complaint was filed before the DLSA Kottayam and the same is pending before the DLSA. On 6-1-2020 the complainant received another bill from the opposite party demanding to pay Rs.4,969/- or else the connection will be disconnected. Though the said matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party but the opposite party never bothered to settle the matter till the date and threatened that they would proceed with disconnection. The complainant never failed to remit the electricity bill till date. It is averred in the complaint that it is the duty of the opposite party to verify the electric meter periodically and to replace the meter if it is damaged or defective as and when it is noticed by the board. The average consumption of the complainant before was only around. Rs.500/-. An online complaint was registered on 10-1-20 before the KSEB under the head of Excess Billing and meter fault and the status of the said complaint was shown as that ‘pending for completion by 9-2-2020’. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties is illegal and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainants praying for an order to cancel the bill issued on 6-1-2020 and to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed joint version contending as follows:
Jose Thomas is a consumer of opposite parties. An undercharged bill of Rs.2,510/- with a wrongly noted reading of 437 units instead of 867 unit was issued to the complainant on 7-11-2019. The amount was remitted and a complaint was filed before the DLSA Kottayam and the same was closed accepting the version of the opposite parties. Another usual bill dated 6-1-20 for an amount of Rs.4,969/- was issued to the complainant. Due to the several reasons like door lock etc. sometimes it is not possible to take the actual meter reading, in such situation the usual procedure is that to such consumers zero consumption bill are issued. In this case also on 7/2019 and 9/2019 zero consumption bill were issued only with the nominal charges of Rs.101/- and Rs.45/-. Later the actual consumption for 6 months with bill amount of Rs.7,086/- was given. As per the request of the consumer the total bill amount was split in to two and a bill for consumption of 437 units were issued instead of 867 units. After remitting the amount for 437 units the consumer challenged that bill experimentally before DLSA. The balance under charged consumption were added to the next bill on 1/20. The meter was functioning properly.
It is submitted that the complainant filed a complaint with the online complaint booking system of KSEB on 10-1-20 and the section office repeated the proposal of the testing meter in accredited lab, if the consumer desires. Several times the complainant was informed to file an application for getting the meter tested in an approved lab. But he never responded. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibits A1 to A3. Second opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and exhibit B1 to B8 were marked from the side of the opposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
Point number 1 and 2 together.
There is no dispute on the fact the late Jose Thomas who is the consumer of opposite party vide consumer no.114642004900. Specific case of the complainant that the bill issued by the opposite party on 18-11-2019 for Rs.7,086/- was cancelled when the same was objected by the complainant and had issued another bill for Rs.2,510/-. The complainant with protest paid the said bill amount. Thereafter on 6-1-2020, the complainant received another bill from the opposite party demanding to pay Rs.4,969/- or else the connection would be disconnected. The complainant prayed for the cancellation of the bill dated 6-1-20.
Complaint was resisted by the opposite party contending that a bill for Rs.2,510/- with a wrongly noted reading of 437 units instead of 867 unit was issued to the complainant on 7-11-2019. Thereafter another usual bill dated 6-1-20 for an amount of Rs.4,969/- was issued to the complainant. It is submitted by the opposite party that due to the several reasons like door lock etc. sometimes it is not possible to take the actual meter reading, in such situation the usual procedure is that to such consumers zero consumption bill are issued. In this case also on 7/2019 and 9/2019 zero consumption bills were issued only with the nominal charges of Rs.101/- and Rs.45/-. Later the actual consumption for 6 months with bill amount of Rs.7,086/- was given. Exhibit A1 and A2 are the bills issued by the opposite party on 18-11-2019 to the complainant for Rs.7086 and Rs.2,510/- respectively. On perusal of exhibit A1 and A2 we can see that both the bills are for the period from 7-9-2019 to 7-11-2019 and the previous meter reading in both the bills are 5111 units. As per exhibit A1 the current meter reading was recorded as 5978 units, where as in exhibit A2 the same was recorded as 5546 units. Opposite party in the version submitted that as per the request of the complainant the total bill amount was spit in to two and a bill for consumption of 437 units were issued instead of 867 units. But the opposite party did not produce the request which was given by the complainant for splitting up the exhibit A1 bill.
However in the proof affidavit filed by the second opposite party , the opposite parties tried to explain the differences in exhibit A1 and A2 in another manner. In the proof affidavit second opposite party put forward a story that the complainant had canvassed the meter reader who was working on contract basis and managed to get Exhibit A2 in spite of the A1 bill which shows the actual consumption of the complainant. In order to support their case the opposite party
produced exhibit B5 and B6. On perusal of B5 which is a show cause notice issued to one Sreekanth who was working as meter reader on contract basis. Exhibit B6 is the reply given by the said Sreekanth to Exhibit B5. On perusal of exhibit B5 we can see that the same was issued only on 17-2-20 which is after the filing of this complaint before this commission. On mere reading of exhibit B6 we can see that the opposite party has prior knowledge that the meter reader issued exhibit B1 and B2 bill which are for the month of 7/2019 and 9/2019 respectively by suppressing the fact that the door was not locked. In exhibit B6 it was explained by said Sreekanth that on 7-9-2019 and 9-7-2019 the door was not locked and there was no inmates in the said house. But exhibit B3 which is the copy of the complaint filed by the complaint before the DLSA Kottayam proves that the second opposite party had knowledge about the disputed bills prior to the filing of this complaint. Thus we are of the opinion that exhibit B6 is obtained by the opposite parties with an intention to produce the same before this Commission. Moreover it is the bounden duty of officials of the opposite parties to ensure the correctness of the bill issued by their meter reader and verify how and why these bills were issued by a meter reader before challenging the same by a consumer before any authority. On a close evaluation of the version and evidence we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have no consistent case regarding the issuance of the exhibit A1 and A2 bills.
Another contention of the opposite parties is that if it is not possible to take the actual meter reading, in such situation the usual procedure is that to such consumers zero consumption bills were issued and after calculating the actual consumption for 6 months the final bill is to be issued to the consumer.
In this case though the opposite parties produced Exhibit B1 to B3 bills they did not produce any evidence to prove the consumption of the complainant prior to the exhibit B1. In order to prove the meter was not faulty the opposite parties produced exhibits B8 and B9. On perusal of exhibit B8, it can be seen that it is a report prepared by an overseer of the opposite parties regarding the meter reading of the complainant and the parallel meter reading. But the opposite parties did not produce any mahazar prepared at the time of installing the parallel meter. It is pertinent to note that exhibit B8 did not contain the number of the parallel meter and the meter of the consumer. On perusal of exhibit B9 which is alleged to be the page no 82 of the parallel meter register we cannot see any entry in that to show that it is the part of the parallel meter register. Moreover there was no remarks on the remarks Coolum against the serial no. 5 in which the details of the meter of the complainant is claimed to be entered.
On a thoughtful evaluation of evidence we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by issuing the demand disconnection notice dated 6-1-20 for an amount of Rs.4,969/- and thereby caused much hardship and mental agony to the complainants.
In the circumstances we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
- We hereby set aside the demand disconnection notice dated notice dated 6-1-20 which is issued by the opposite party to the complainant. It is further made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to issue fresh bill to the complainants for their actual consumption as per the provisions of the law without levying any interest, penal charge etc.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.7,500/- as compensation to the complainants for the hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainants due to the deficiency in- service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this litigation to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 14th day of September, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Copy of bill issued by opposite party
A2- Copy of bill issued by opposite party
A3 - Copy of bill issued by opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of notice dtd.06-07-19 issued by opposite party
B2 – Copy of notice dtd.07-09-19 issued by opposite party
B3 – Copy of complaint filed before Legal Service Authority, Kottayam
B4 – Copy of notice dtd.07-11-19 issued by opposite party
B5 – Copy of notice dtd.17-02-20 by opposite party
B6 – Reply letter dtd.26-02-20 by Sreekanth B to AE Ettumanoor.
B7- Copy of notice dtd.14-02-20 by opposite party to Jose Joseph
B8 –Report by Ajayakumar T.N. Overseer, Ele. Section, Ettumanoor (subject
to proof)
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
