IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 210/2017 (filed on 16-09-2017)
Petitioner : T.K. Raju,
Vettukuzhiyil House,
Poozhikkattu, Karapuzha,
Kottayam – 686602.
(Adv. Avaneesh V.N.)
Vs.
Opposite Party : 1) Kerala State electricity Board,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2) Assistant Engineer,
K.S.E.B. Section,
Central Junction,
Kottayam – 686601.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a business man and the beneficiary of the consumer number 40108133 of Kottayam Central stadium. The connection is in the name of his late wife Sheela. On 30-8-2017 he received a bill dated 25-8-2017 for Rs.30205/- from the office of the second opposite party with an endorsement as” RAO Audit Bill demanding that the payment should be made on or before 25-9-2017. It is further stated in the bill that the meter was faulty and that the period from 06/15 to 12/15 was re-assessed. No calculation statement is attached or stated in the bill and it was not assessed by the assessing officer as per law relating to Electricity.
According to the complainant, the meter was not faulty during the period 6/15 to 12/15 and the meter was not changed. It is submitted that the meter was faulty in 2017 and it was changed immediately. When his children came up for vacation then only, the consumption went in a higher level. When he enquired about the bill, the second opposite party directed him to give a letter and accordingly a letter was given by him without knowing the consequences of the same. It is further averred in the complaint that the opposite parties have no authority to issue such a bill based upon an audit report . No amount is due to the respondents. The above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has suffered a lot of sufferings from the above said act of the opposite party. Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed joint version contending as follows:
The complainant is not a registered consumer of the first opposite party and hence the complaint is not maintainable. The service connection with consumer no. 18113 of Electrical section Kottayam is in the name of Smt. Sheela under the LT 1A tariff. The consumption of the consumer was assessed for average consumption of 362 units from 12/2015 till 2/2017 due to law visibility of the meter even though the reading of the meter was recorded in the bill. The average consumption was arrived considering the consumption for the bills issued for the months of 6/2015, 08/2015 and10/2015. Subsequently the bills of the consumer was revised based on the healthy average of 681 units. The healthy average was calculated considering the average consumption for the months 12/2014, 2/2015 and 4/2015. Hence the bills for the period from 6/2015 to 2/2017 was revised based on the healthy average and a short assessment bill for Rs.30,205/- dated 25-08-2017 was issued .
The meter of the complainant was having low visibility of display and hence the meter was suspected to be faulty for the period from 5/2015 to 12/2015. The meter was changed on 29-7-2017. The meter was tested on the basis of the complaint by the complainant. The test results shows that the meter as good and not faulty. The monthly reading of the meter was downloaded in the laboratory and based on the same the earlier bill for Rs.30,205/- was revised and the bill dated 16-1-2018 for Rs.17,416 was issued on the basis of the actual consumption of the complainant. Kerala Electricity Supply code 2014 empowers the opposite parties to recover any amount under charged from the consumer. The action of the opposite party was legal.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and exhibits A1 and A2 were marked. Second opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination for and on behalf of the first opposite party and Exhibits B1 to B4 were got 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.
1. Whether complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side
of the opposite parties?
3. If so what are the reliefs?
Point number 1
It is contended by the opposite parties that the complainant is not a registered consumer of the first opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable Admittedly the electricity connection vide consumer number 40108133 is in the name of the complainant’s late wife Sheela. It is submitted in the proof affidavit that the complainant is a business man and the beneficiary of the electricity connection which is in the name of his late wife. Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer protection act defines consumer as”
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.
Thus any person who is a beneficiary of the services other than the person who availed such service is a consumer under consumer protection act. Here in case on hand though the electricity connection is in the name of the wife of the complainant, he is the beneficiary of the connection to conduct his business. Therefore we find that the complainant is a consumer as envisaged in Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is maintainable.
Point number 2 and 3
The specific case of the complainant that on 25-8-2017 the second opposite party issued A1 bill for an amount of Rs.30,205/- to him stating that the meter faulty period was re-assessed. According to the opposite parties the consumption of the complainant was assessed for average consumption of 362 units for the months from 12/ 2015 to 2/2017 due to low display visibility of the meter after considering the consumption from 6/2015, 08/2015 and to 10/2015.
Subsequently Exhibit A1 short assessment bill was issued after considering the healthy consumption of 681 units after calculating the healthy average consumption of the complainant from the period 12/2014, 02/2015 and 4/2015. There is no dispute on the fact that the meter was changed on 29-7-2017. Exhibit B2 proves that the meter was not faulty and the errors were within the permissible limit.
Though the opposite parties contended that they had issued the energy bill for the period of more than one year ie. from 12/ 2015 to 2/2017 for average consumption of 362 units due to low display visibility of the meter, they have not produced any evidence to prove that the meter of the complainant was having low visibility on that period.
However as discussed above it is stated in Exhibit A1 and B4 that the meter faulty period is re-assessed. Rule 116 of Kerala electricity supply code 2014 cast duty upon the licensee for the periodical inspection of the meter and
associated apparatus. As per sub rule 2 of rule 116 if the meter is found defective, the licensee may test it at site and if not possible to do it, then the licensee shall replace the defective meter with correct meter and test the defective meter in an accredited or approved laboratory. Here in case on hand admittedly the meter was replaced and tested by the opposite parties only after receiving a complaint from the complainant after he had received ExhibitA1 bill stating that his consumption of energy has been re-assessed for the meter faulty period. Though the opposite parties were well aware with the fact that the energy meter of the complainant have low visibility problem from 12/2015 they did not care to replace the meter in accordance with law and record the actual consumption of the complainant for more than one year.
It is pertinent to note that though the meter started to show low visibility during the period 12/2015 it was tested only on 31-10-2017 and it was found in good condition.
Regulation 125 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code states that, 1. In the case of defective or damaged meter, the consumer shall be billed on the basis of the 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 the 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.
1. 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.
In Ext.A1 and B1 it can be seen that the bill is for the period of 6/2015 to 12/15. On perusal of exhibit B4 we can see that the same is the bill for 24 months from 25-12-2015 to 23-6-2017. Thus we are of the opinion that Exhibit A1 and B4 were not generated as per 125 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014. As issuance of exhibit A1 is itself void ab initio the opposite parties cannot claim any amount by issuing exhibit B4. After Obtaining B2 and B3 and convincing that the issuance of Exhibit A1 bill was not as per law the opposite parties revised Exhibit A1 and issued Exhibit A2 short assessment bill on 16-1-2018.
Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act defines deficiency as follows;
“ ‘Deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.
On a close evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case we can see the act of imperfection and negligence by the second opposite party who is bound to discharge his duty in compliance with the provisions of the law and ensure the revenue to the public exchequer. We cannot encourage such practice which ultimately result to saddle the bonafide consumers of the opposite parties with the bill of huge sum to cure and rectify the imperfection and negligence of the officials of the opposite parties.
Therefore we are of the opinion that opposite party has committed deficiency in service by testing the meter without complying the provisions of the clause 116 of the Kerela Electricity Supply Code 2014 and issuing exhibit A1 short assessment bill by the second opposite party .
In the circumstances we allow the complaint in part and pass the following order.
- We hereby set aside the Exhibit A1 and A2 bills which are issued by the opposite party to the complainant and direct the opposite parties to issue fresh bills in compliance with the provisions of the law without levying any penal charges We hereby direct the second opposite party to pay Rs.5000 as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony due to the deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.
- We hereby direct the second opposite party to pay 2500 as cost of this litigation to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this Order, failing in which the compensation amount will carry 9% till the date of compliance of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 25th day of November, 2021
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 electricity bill dtd.25-08-2017
A2 – Copy of electricity bill dtd.16-01-2018
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of bill dtd.25-08-17 issued by opposite party
B2 – Copy of test report of challenged three phase energy meter
B3 – Copy of previous billing report (Larsen & Toubro Limited)
B4 – Copy of notice No.BB/SABill/2017-18 dtd.16-01-18 by AE to petitioner
By Order
Senior Superintendent
