By C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President
Complainant is a consumer under opposite party for supply of electricity to the small scale industrial unit conducted by her in the name and style, M/S Pongallur flour & Oil mill. The unit functions with workers in one shift only and proper registers are maintained showing the production in the unit. Regular monthly bills were issued by opposite party for the electricity charges. Complainant used to pay the bills without
(2)
default. As the meter was faulty, on request made by complainant, the meter was replaced on 9.3.2004. Four years later, on 24.4.2008 opposite party issued a short assessment bill for Rs. 30953/-. No details were shown in the bill. Complainant requested for the details. He was then informed by opposite party that Rs.458/- is charged for the amount omitted to be included in the bill of 6/2003. The balance amount is the short assessment bill for the period 10/2003 to 2/2004 during which the meter was faulty. Complainant states that the bill is time barred and issued against provisions of law. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service.
Opposite party filed version admitting the issuance of the short assessment bill of Rs.30953/-. It is submitted that the meter being faulty was replaced on 9.3.2004. In the audit inspection conducted by the Regional Audit office, it was found that the meter was faulty from 10/2003 onwards. The meter readings prior to changing the meter and after changing the meter will show that meter was not recroding properly from 10/2003 onwards. As the meter was changed only on 3/2004, the short assessment bill for Rs. 30953/- was issued for the period during which the meter was faulty. It is further submitted that in the bill issued in June 2003 the units consumed was shown mistakenly as 1232 whereas the actual energy consumed was 1362. The complainant is liable to pay Rs. 458/- towards this shortage caused due to mistake. That this amount is also included in the said short assessment bill. That the bills are legal & proper. That there is no deficiency in service.
Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by complainant and Exts A1 and A2 marked for her. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts B1 and B2 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.
Complainant is aggrieved by the issuance of Ext A2 bill dated 24.2.2008 for Rs. 30,953/-. It is submiited by opposite party that out of this amount Rs.458/- is demanded towards rectification of error detected in audit inspection.Ext B2 is the audit inspection report showing the error of calculating units of energy in June 2003. As per regulation 37(5) the Board can recover the amount under charged from the consumer. But the Board while issuing the bill, has to specify the amount to be recovered as a separate item in the subsequent bill or as a separate bill with an explanation of this account. Ext A2 does not show any mention of Rs. 458/- or the reason for collection of Rs.458/-. The non-mention of Rs.458/- separately in the bill as an amount undercharged in the month of June 2003 is
(3)
deficiency. The Board has explained the calculation in Ext A1 reply issued to the complainant on his request to furnish the details of calculation. On such score we hold that Board is entitled to recover the under charged amount of Rs.458/- and complainant is liable to pay the same.
5. In Ext A2 bill Rs. 30,495/- is demanded towards short assessment for the period 10/2003 to 2/2004. It is the case of opposite party that meter was found faulty and changed on 9.3.2004. Relying upon audit inspection report(Ext B2) it is contended by opposite party that as per audit inspection it was detected that the meter was faulty from 10/2003 itself. That as the meter was changed only on 3/2004, the complainant is liable to pay the energy charges based on the average consumption of six months after replacing the meter.
Regulation 33(2) of K.S.E.B.Conditions of Supply 2005 reads as under:
“If the Board is unable to raise a bill on meter reading due to its non-recording or malfunctioning , the Board shall issue a bill based on the previous six months average consumption. In such cases the meter shall be replaced within one month. If the average consumption for the previous six months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason, the consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding three months after replacement of meter”.
6. The object in enacting this provision appears to be that the Board is bound to take
expeditious steps for rectifying the defects of the meter. It also intends to prevent the Board from burdening the consumer with short assessment bills after a long lapse of time. In the instance case the meter was replaced in 3/2004 only. The Board can raise a bill for short assessment basing upon average consumption of three months, only if the meter is replaced within one month after it became faulty. If Board contends the meter to be faulty on 10/2003 then the meter ought to have been replaced within 11/2003. Opposite party has not complied Regulation 33(2) and changed the meter within one month. Further Board can issue short assessment bill only if the Board was unable to raise a bill due to malfunctioning of meter. Here opposite party has not established that opposite party was not able to raise a bill. Consumer was billed as per the meter readings during this period. Without complying Reg.33(2) fully the short assessment bill issued by opposite party is illegal. The Hon'ble SCDRC(Kerala) has taken similar view in F.A No.
(4)
87/2010 dated 8.3.2010. Applying the provisions of law & the principle laid in the above judgment, we hold that Ext A2 bill is liable to be set aside to the extend of the charges demanded for the period 10/2003 to 2/2004. Issuing bills without legal basis is deficiency. We find opposite parties deficient in service. In our opinion cancelling Ext A2 bill for the short assessment period would be adequate relief to the complainant.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and order the following:
(i) Ext A2 bill is cancelled to the extend of charges (Rs.30495) demanded for the period 10/2003 to 2/2004. Complainant is liable to pay Rs. 458/- demanded and included in Ext A2 Bill.
(ii) Any amount already paid by the complainant towards this bill shall be adjusted to the amount payable (Rs.458/-) under Ext A2 bill and also to the future electricity bills if necessary.
(iii) The time for compliance of this order is fixed as one month from the date of reciept of copy of this order.
(iv) There is no order as to costs.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2010.
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
(5)
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to Ext. A2
Ext.A1 :Letter given to complainant by Opposite party
Ext.A2 :Notice given to complainant by Opposite party
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to Ext. B2
Ext. B1 :True copy of Meter Reading Bill
Ext. B2 :True copy of audit inspection report showing the error of calculating units of energy in June 2003 .
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
