IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday, the 31st day of December, 2011
Filed on 03.05.2011
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 152/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Ajikumar 1. Kerala State Electricity Board
Perumbalakkattil Veedu Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
Chirakkadavam Muri Represented by its Secretary, KSEB
Kayamkulam Village Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom
Represented by his Father Thiruvananthapuram
Sri. Sukumaran
(By Adv. P.T. Rasheed) 2. The Executive Engineer
KSEB., Mavelikara Division
Mavelikara
3. The Asst. Executive Engineer
KSEB, East Division, Kayamkulam
(By Adv. A. Anilkumar – Opposite parties)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Ajikumar has filed this complaint before the Forum through his Power of Attorney Holder Sri.Sukumaran, his father alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The allegations are as follows:- He is the consumer of the KSEB Kayamkulam East Division vide Consumer No.11413 – Residential site No. KMC 24/81. He is remitting the electricity charges to the opposite parties regularly and without any default, and it comes between Rs.120/- and Rs.200/-. He had received electricity bills for an amount of Rs.136/- and Rs.167/- range and remitting the amount regularly. Latest bill for the month of February 11 was only Rs.180/- and remitted the said amount on 14.2.2011. Vide demand notice dt. 11.4.11 (Bill No.26 71 28) the reading was noted as 336 and further noted 1424 by way sub meter reading, and the opposite parties estimated 1088 unit electricity for his use as per the above bill. The said bill is silent regarding the Tariff or Minimum Tariff. As per the direction in the said bill issued by the 3rd opposite party, he has to remit Rs.4808/- for 2 months. It is alleged that there was no extra equipments of electrical item in their house and that his father and mother are only persons in the house. Earlier, they have pointed out the defects of the energy meter, vide dt. 18.4.11. But the opposite parties have not turned up to verify the same. On 25.4.11,two officers of the 3rd opposite party had visited his residence and directed him to remit the amount of Rs.4831/- in order to avoid electric disconnection. At that time they had compelled him to write a request for granting installment remittance of the said amount and remitted a sum of Rs.2427/- for avoiding disconnection of electricity. There was no positive approach from the opposite parties for this dispute. Hence this complaint seeking relief.
2. Notice was issued to the parties. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
3. In the version, it is stated that the complaint is not sustainable. It is stated that the Consumer No. bearing 11413 is in respect of the complainant and that his bill amounts for the moth of December 2010, February 11, October 2010 are Rs.184/- Rs.118/- and Rs.136/20 respectively. But in the bill for the month of April 2011, the meter reading was seen as 1424 ad the earlier reading was 336 and use of electricity was 1088 unit, and the assessment bill amount of Rs.4808/- was for the said unit. It is further stated that they have examined the meter along with another meter and examined the consumption. It shows equal reading. So it is assumed that the meter is not faulty. It can be examined through electrical Inspectorate, after obtaining orders from this Forum. It is stated that the defect occurred may be the reason of earth leakage, through the additional equipment of the consumer. The consumer had filed installment facility application and remitted 50% of the said amount of Rs.4808/-. It is further stated that the loss occurred due to the earth leakage of the electricity is to met by the consumer.
4. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to remit the disputed amounts?
3) Compensation and costs.
5. Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support his case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 to A15 – marked. Ext.A1 is the Report dt. 19.4.2011 prepared by the Sub Engineer of the opposite parties. It shows the details of equipments seen in the residence of the complainant. It further shows that he has examined the meter of the complainant, avoiding load and found that the meter reading was not seen. Ext.A2 is the Report dt. 23.5.2011 of the Sub Engineer stating that he had examined the meter together with another meter and the readings are different. It is further repeated that the meter was working properly. Ext.A3 is the bill dt. 25.4.2011 stating the remittance of Rs.2404/- by the complainant from the total assessed amount of Rs.4808/-. Ext.A4 is the Bill dt. 4.4.2011 for the total assessed amount of Rs.4808/- issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A5 is the bill dt. 5.2.2011 for a sum of Rs.185/-, Ext.A6 is the letter sent to the 3rd opposite party by the complainant to examine the meter, Ext.A7 is the installment sanction order of 3rd opposite party issued to the complainant in respect of the disputed amount, Ext.A8 is the bill dt. 14.2.2011 for a total sum of Rs.184/-, Ext.A9 is the bill dt. 14.10.2010 for a total sum of Rs.136/-, Ext.A10 is the bill dt. 20.4.2010 for a total sum of Rs.158/-, Ext.A11 is the bill dt. 13.8.10 for a total sum of Rs.127/-, Ext.A12 is the bill dt. 15.2.2010 for a total sum of Rs.148/-, Ext.A13 is the bill dt.16.8.2010 for a sum of Rs.97/-, Ext.A14 is the bill dt. 17.6.2010 for a total sum of Rs.169/- and Ext.A15 is the bill dt.18.10.2010 for a sum of Rs.137/-.
6. Opposite parties have filed counter affidavit in support of their case and produced 2 documents – Exts. B1 and B2 – marked – Ext.B1 and B2 are the complaints filed by the complainant before the 3rd opposite party.
7. We have carefully examined the whole matters involved in this case, and verified the documents produced by both parties in evidence. Exts.A8 to A15 documents shows that the amounts charged by the opposite parties in connection with the use of the electricity by the complainant. The amount was below Rs.200/- and the complainant had remitted those amounts properly and without any default, before the 3rd opposite party. While so, the 3rd opposite party issued a bill dt. 4.4.2011 to the complainant after charging a sum of Rs.4808/- towards the electric charge. It is alleged by the complainant, that he had not used the electricity for the said unit. It is further alleged that the officers of the opposite parties visited the residence of the complainant and without verifying the meter properly assessed a sum of Rs.4808/- and they issued the bill for remittance to the complainant. Ext.A1 shows that the Sub Engineer of the 3rd opposite party examined the meter and found that the meter reading was not seen at the time of inspection. Ext.A2 further shows that the meter is working properly. It is further alleged that after issuing the bill for Rs.4808/-, the 3rd opposite party directed the complainant to remit the amount, for avoiding disconnection of electric supply. So he forced to remit Rs.2404/- (Ext.A3).
8. On a careful study of the entire mater of this case, it can be seen that the complainant had remitted the amounts of electric charges properly and without any default and the amounts was below Rs.200/-. The disputed amount was occurred due to the readings of the faulty meter and the opposite parties ought to have taken proper checkup of the said meter in time. Without taking a proper check up; the readings of the said mater cannot be taken as a proper assessment for a sum of Rs.4808/- when compared to the earlier amounts remitted by the complainant. So the assessment shown in the disputed bill dt. 4.4.2011 (Ext.A4) cannot be accepted as a valid and it is to be quashed. After considering the whole aspects of this matter, we are of the view that the action taken by the opposite parties in this case was highly irregular and illegal and assessment made by the opposite parties are to be treated as arbitrary, since the assessment amount issued to the complainant was without examining the meter properly. The Exts.B1 and B2 cannot be accepted as a valid documents to assess the exorbitant amount to be remitted by the complainant. After verify the earlier amounts remitted by the complainant, the assessment bill vide dt.4.4.2011 made by the opposite parties cannot be accepted and the whole action will comes within the purview of deficiency in service and negligence. So after perusal of the entire matter involved in this case, we hereby quashed the bill dt. 4.4.2011 for a sum of Rs.4808/- assessed by the 3rd opposite party in an arbitrary way. The complainant is not entitled to remit any amount as per the said bill dt. 4.4.2011 (Ext.A4). So we hereby direct the 3rd opposite party that the 50% amount already remitted by the complainant before the 3rd opposite party ie. (Rs.2404/- - Ext.A3) is to be adjusted for the subsequent payments of electric charges to be remitted by the complainant. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
Considering the whole facts and circumstance of this case, we are of the further view that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the side of the opposite parties by way of wrongful assessment of electric charges without verify the defects of the meter and its reading. Even though there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties, we are not directing the opposite parties to pay any compensation or costs to the complainant for a fair adjudication of the matter involved in this case. We further directing the opposite parties to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Report dt. 19.4.2011
Ext.A2 - Report dt.23.4.2011
Ext.A3 - Bill dt. 25.4.2011
Ext.A4 - Bill dt. 4.4.2011
Ext.A5 - Bill dt. 5.2.2011
Ext.A6 - Letter sent to the 3rd opposite party by the complainant
Ext.A7 - Installment sanction order of 3rd opposite party issued to the
complainant
Ext.A8 - Bill dt. 14.2.2011 for Rs.184/-
Ext.A9 - Bill dt. 14.10.10 for Rs.136/-
Ext.A10 - Bill dt. 20.04.10 for Rs.158/-
Ext.A11 - Bill dt. 13.08.10 for Rs.127/-
Ext.A12 - Bill dt. 15.02.10 for Rs.148/-
Ext.A13 - Bill dt. 16.08.10 for Rs.97/-
Ext.A14 - Bill dt. 17.06.10 for Rs.169/-
Ext.A15 - Bill dt. 18.10.10 for Rs.137/-
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Exts.B1 & B2 - Complaints filed by the complainant before the 3rd opposite party.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
