PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2012
Filed on : 19/11/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 645/2011
Between
Paily S/o. Paulose, : Complainant
Puthussery house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Neriamangalam P.O., Road, Muvattupuzha)
Kothamangalam.
And
1. Secretary, : Opposite parties
KSEB, Vydyuthy Bhavan, (By Adv. P.B. Asokan, XL/4664,
Pattom, Banerji road, Kochi-682 031)
Thiruvananthapuram-690 004.
2. The Asst. Engineer,
KSEB Electrical Section No.11,
Kothamangalam-686 691.
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
The complainant is a LT-7A category consumer of electricity under the 2nd opposite party. The connection was provided to a shop room, working as a cool bar. The short assessment bill dated
25-10-2011 for Rs. 11,058/- has been issued to the complainant. On enquiry it was informed that the bill was issued with respect to the short assessment during the year 2008. Moreover, if the meter was faulty, it was the duty of the opposite parties to replace the meter within one month from the date of detection. It is also pertinent to note that the demand raised by the opposite party is barred by limitation as per Regulation 18 of the electricity supply code. Therefore the said bill dated 25-10-2011 is liable to be set aside. Hence this complaint.
2. Version filed by the opposite party is as follows:
The short assessment bill for Rs. 11,058/- was issued against the complainant since the meter was faulty with effect from 09/2007. But fixed charges of Rs.60/- and meter charge of Rs. 80/- was charged from the consumer only up to 02-03-2009. The meter was changed with the initial reading 4. There after the average consumption of the complainant is 210 units. The meter again became faulty on 01/07/2010 and it was changed on 30-04-2011 with initial reading zero. The consumption after meter change is 835 units. Hence the assessment for the period from 7/2008 to 11/2009 and 9/2010 to 1/2011 was charged as per the calculation shown below:
CC to be paid for 210 units =Rs.1518x12 bills =18,216
The current charges paid for the period from 7,158
7/2008 to 11/2009 and 9/2010 to 1/2011 ---------------
Balance 11,058
=========
The complainant is liable to remit Rs. 11,058/-.
For the reasons stated above the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed by him in the complaint.
3. The complainant and the opposite party represented through counsel. Both sides adduced only oral evidence. Exts. A1 was marked on the side of the complainant and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard both sides.
4. The points that arose for determination are as follows:
i. Whether the complaint is liable to pay the impugned bill amount?
ii. What are the reliefs, if any?
5. Points Nos. i&ii. This complaint is filed by the complainant to get Ext. A1 bill dated 25-10-2011 set aside. The bill has been issued by the opposite parties to levy an amount of Rs. 11,058/- on the basis of short assessment for the period from 7/2008 to 11/2009, and 9/2010 to 1/2011. The complainant contented that the demand raised by the opposite parties is barred by limitation as prescribed under Regulation 18(8) of the electricity supply code, 2005. But there is substance in the contention with regard to the 1st limb of the Ext. A1 bill for the period from 7/2008 to 11/2009. As per the above Regulation the charges demanded after the period of two years that is for the period from 7/2008 to 11/2009 is barred by limitation. Hence the Ext. A1 bill is not justified in law. The opposite parties are legally not entitled to levy any amount from the complainant for the period from 7/2008 to 11/2009. However the second lamb of the Ext. A1 bill period from 9/2010 to 1/2011 is sustainable and it is made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to issue a fresh bill for such period.
Admittedly the latest meter erected on 30-04-2011 is working. The initial reading is Zero As per Section 33 (2) of the KSEB terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. “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”. In the above circumstances on the basis of the average reading the opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh bill retrospectively from 7/2010 to 30/04/2010.
To conclude, we party allow the complaint and order as follows:
i. We set aside Ext. A1 dated 25-10-2011
ii. The opposite parties are directed to issue revised bill as per Regulation 33(2) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions
of Supply, 2005 based on the reading in replaced meter
and issue a fresh bill retrospectively for the period from
01/07/2010 to 30-04-2011.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of bill dt. 25-10-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of bill History
B2 : Copy of bill dt. 25-10-2011
