IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of September, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 51/2021 (Filed on 23-02-2021)
Petitioner : Sreekumar S.
Mattora,
Idavattom P.O.
Thalayolaparamb
Vs.
Opposite party : Assistant Engineer,
K.S.E.B.
Thalayolaparamb
Pin – 686605.
(Adv. Deepthy S. Nath and
Adv. Malavika Suresh)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complaint is as follows.
The Complainant is having an Electricity Connection with consumer Number: 2399.The complainant was issued a bill dated 10-11-2020 for an amount of Rs.1311.The complainant is residing alone in the house and using only an LED bulb. There is no chance for getting a bill for such an amount. A complaint was given before the opposite party about the bill, but a favorable reply was not received. The opposite party had asked the complainant to pay RS.250 for checking the meter or otherwise full amount has to be paid. It is the responsibility of the opposite party to check whether there is any fault in the electric meter or other technical issues. This complaint is filed for getting relief for the sufferings due to the act of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
On admission of the complaint copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
In the version, the opposite party admits that a bill for an amount of Rs.1311 was issued on 10/11/2020 to the complainant having consumer number 2399.The complainant has used 283 units of electricity and Rs.1311 is the charge for the used units. Complainant filed a petition about the bill. The complainant was intimated that if there is complaint about the bill then the meter is to be checked after remitting the fee. But the complainant was not ready to remit the fee and to check the meter. The revision in the bill can only be done after getting a test report from a recognized laboratory. The complaint was filed without taking the legal actions by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked document as Exhibit A1. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits B1 to Ext B4.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite party and proof affidavit
of the complainant and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
1 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2 If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point number 1 &2
together.
Points 1 &2
Ongoing through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record it is evident that the complainant was issued a bill for an amount of Rs.1311 in consumer number 2399 by the opposite party. The complainant submitted a petition before the opposite party about the bill. Ext A1 is the bill dated 10/11/2020 issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1311 in consumer number. 2399. As per Ext A1 current meter reading is 2575.Previous meter reading is 2292 and consumption is 283 and average consumption is given as 64 units.
Ext B2 is the copy of the petition given by the complainant dated 15/2/21 before the opposite party. Ext B3 is the copy of the intimation dated 18/02/21 given to the complainant requesting to remit the meter testing fee. Ext B4 is the leter from The Regional Audit officer dated 23/07/2020 addressed to the Executive engineer vaikom which states that as per regulation116(2) of Kerala electricity supply code, the defectiveness of a meter is to be determined by testing done only at an accredited labs/TMR. The Test certificate is essential for the downward revision of bills and for the strict compliance of regulations 115 and 116 of Kerala supply code 2014.
The complainant filed Ext B2 complaint before the opposite party with regard to the Ext A1 bill issued to him. The opposite party issued Ext B3 letter to the complainant to remit fee for testing the meter.
From the above findings it is clear that the opposite party can revise the Ext A1 bill only with a test report of the meter done in an accredited lab or TMR. The complainant was asked to remit the required fee vide Ext B3 but the complainant failed to remit the required fee for testing the meter. On receiving a complaint from the complainant, the opposite party initiated further steps to resolve the complaint. On analyzing the above facts, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and Point no.1 is not found in favor of the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of September, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Original bill issued by opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Demand and disconnection notice dtd.10-11-2020
B2 – Copy of letter dtd.15-02-2021 by petitioner to opposite party
B3 – Copy of letter dtd.18-02-21 by opposite party to petitioner
B4 – Copy of Order (RAO-1/KTM/General/2020-21/49)
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
