Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/7

THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOTHER SUPERIOR, ADORATION CONVENT - Opp.Party(s)

B.SAKTHIDARAN NAIR

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.07/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 31/10/2015

  

PRESENT:

 

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR        :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

 

APPELLANTS:

 

1.  The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board,

  Vydyuthy Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

 

2.  The Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board,

 Electrical  Major Section, Painavu, Idukki Colony P.O.,

 Vazhathoppe, Idukki District.

 

(By Adv:  B. Sakthidharan Nair)         

          

                        Vs

 

RESPONDENT:

 

            Mother Superior, Adoration Convent,

Mariyapuram P.O., Kuthirakkallu, Idukki District-685 602.

           

(By Adv:  John P.L & Rajmohan C.S)  

                 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

          Appellants are the opposite parties who preferred this appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.271/2012 on the file of CDRF, Idukki.

          2.  The complainant is the Consumer of opposite party having Consumer No.18947 under LT VI(A) Tariff.  The average monthly consumption was 357 and the average monthly bill was Rs.2,150/-.  On 05/11/2012 the complainant received a bill for Rs.11,566/-.   The complainant who is a mother superior of the Convent filed a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party regarding the sudden spurt in the bill and on the same day itself the 2^nd opposite party inspected the meter and found a dead lizard connecting the two terminals of the meter.  After removing the lizard the meter was found working in order.  Thereafter the opposite parties installed a parallel meter to the existing meter which also showed the correct reading.  It is stated in the complaint that during the construction the complainant made a wooden box to keep the meter safe and locked it.  Thereafter the meter reader asked the complainant to remove the lock of the meter box and thereafter a short circuit caused resulting improper functioning of the electronic equipments.  It is asserted that the complainant is not liable to pay the exorbitant bill due to the faulty meter reading.  The complaint is filed for issuance of fresh bill and also prayed for compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Further the claim is for Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

3.   It is admitted in the version that the opposite party issued a bill for Rs.11,566/- during the month of November 2012.  On inspection it was found that there had a major complaint in the electrical work done by the electrician of the complainant for the wiring of newly installed generator at the premises of the complainant.  It is found out by the 2^nd opposite party that a major fault in the wiring system related to the generator occurred in the premises of the complainant.  This resulted in the serious problems in earthing and loss of high electricity.  The presence of a dead lizard in the tight fit meter box is not correct and the installation of a parallel meter with the existing meter at the same time is also a false statement by the complainant.  The installation of the generator was not proper which resulted in the loss of electricity in earthing.  After correcting the installation, the meter was again checked and found correct reading.  The revised bill for the faulty installation of generator by the complainant with in-competent person does not entitle to give a discount on revised bill to the complainant.  Hence the opposite parties are not responsible for the negligence caused on the part of complainant and no deficiency can be attributed upon the opposite parties.

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and PW2 and PW3 were examined and documents were marked as Exbts. P1 to P5 series on the part of the complainant and DW1 was examined on the part of opposite parties. 

5.  The arguments putforth by the appellant are that there is no defect in the energy meter and the complainant is bound to remit for the units recorded in the energy meter and the bill was issued on the basis of the reading of meter.  The counsel pointed out that as per the regulation 4(1) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code and as per Regulation 44(1) of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply “the point of commencement of supply shall be at the incoming terminal of the cut outs installed by the consumer in the case of LT Supply”.  As such the short circuit due to the alleged touching lizard in the out going terminal of the meter of the complainant cannot be attributed as deficiency upon the appellant since it was beyond the responsibility of the appellants.  On that ground also the respondent is liable to pay the bill amount.  Further as per regulation 25(1) & 3 of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, Consumer shall compensate the Board in full for any damage caused to the main apparatus or instruments or any other property of the Board in the Consumer’s premises by reason of any Act, negligent or default of consumer.  The District Forum cancelled the bill without appreciating the Electricity Rules and Regulations.

6.  It is vehemently argued by the counsel for the respondent that the sudden spurt in the meter reading was due to the presence of dead lizard connecting the two terminals of the meter.  After removing the lizard the meter was found working normally.  The complainant is the mother superior of the convent and on receiving the exhorbitant bill filed a complaint before the 2^nd appellant.  On inspection it was found that a lizard found was dead connecting the two terminals of the meter box.  It is argued that the 2^nd appellant inspected the premises immediately on receiving the complaint and removed the lizard and thereafter the meter reading became normal.  A parallel meter installed by the appellant showed the correct meter reading.  The assertion made by the respondent is that the wooden box happened to be opened by the meter reader caused the touching of lizard.  The exhorbitant bill is not liable to be paid by the respondent and had not committed any error or mistake.  No tampering of meter reported by the appellant and the spurt is due to unexpected incidents.  No additional connection is made by the respondent whereas the generator installed with the permission of the appellant.  The expert PW3 also deposed that once short circuit occurred changes in readings will happen.  He also supported that the presence of dead lizard until it becomes dry the current will pass and the partial short circuit shall result leakage of current.  Hence the change in meter reading and the spurt is not because of any act of the respondent whereas it is an unexpected cause by the lizard and excess reading shown is not liable to be paid by the respondents and the bill is only to set-aside.

7.  Heard both sides in detail and we have gone through the documents.  The issuance of additional bill for Rs.11,566/-  was due to the excess meter reading in the electronic meter of the respondent. Obviously the meter reading shown excess by short circuit and the partial current leakage.   It is an admitted fact that there had current leakage which showed in the meter of the respondent.  The responsibility of the appellant is restricted upto the meter and the meter is to be kept in safe custody and in tact by the consumer.  Though the meter box was opened even if with the direction of the meter reader the respondent is at responsibility to see the meter box in tact and  proper and in safe condition, it is also in evidence that the installation of generator was done by respondent during that period and it is also found out that there had mistake in the installation which caused earthing.  As per the instructions from the appellant the connection of generator was carried out in the right way in order to function it during the switching over without the loss of electricity by earthing.  By that time the meter showed correct reading.  Hence the spurt in the meter reading cannot be considered as deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and respondent is liable to pay the amount.

In the result, appeal is allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

A. RADHA             :     MEMBER

 

 

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.07/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 31/10/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.