By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant is the legal heir of deceased complainant Kadiyumma. She is presently the beneficiary of the electricity connection provided by opposite party for domestic purpose. The case of complainant is that she was paying Rs.90/- per month as electricity charges under the Provisional Invoice Card (PIC) issued by opposite party. Later when her connection was changed to a three phase one in February, 1994 opposite party revised and enhanced the charges under Provisional Invoice Card to Rs.275/- per month. The meter during the time was faulty and was not replaced by opposite party. That the enhancement of Provisional Invoice card was imaginary and without any basis. Even though complainant protested and requested to reduce the charges of Provisional Invoice Card, opposite party did not heed to the request. Opposite party failed to take regular meter readings. After three years in February, 1997 opposite party revised and reduced the charges under Provisional Invoice Card to Rs.100/-. It was promised by opposite party that the excess amount collected would be adjusted to future bills. Till date opposite party has not made refund of the excess amount collected which is Rs.6,290/- or adjusted this amount to future bills. Later in 1998 the faulty meter was replaced. In early 2000 complainant installed a few modern electrical appliances like air conditioner etc. in the house. Thereafter consumption hiked and during May, 2000 meter reading was taken. An adjustment bill was issued for Rs.7,124/-. The meter was faulty and complainant is not liable to pay this amount. Hence this complaint praying to set aside the bill for Rs.7,124/- and to direct opposite parties to refund Rs.6,290/- with 24% interest and to pay compensation of rs.2,000/- with costs of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party has filed version admitting that complainant is a consumer for electricity supply for domestic purpose from 08-7-1982 onwards. The meter was faulty on 3/94. The single phase connection was changed to three phase connection on 09-3-1994 on request of consumer. Then the Provisional Invoice Card was revised to 250 units. Though the faulty meter was replaced on 24-6-1997 this meter was also stuck and did not work properly. So the meter readings for the period from March, 1994 to February, 1997 was not available. The Provisional Invoice Card was revised and enhanced to 250 units after change of the connection to a three phase one. Complainant has remitted the enhanced charges from 4/94 to 2/97. Opposite party has taken steps to assess the consumer for 100 units for the above period and to give credit for the excess amount collected as per Provisional Invoice Card. The meter was replaced on 12-5-1998 with three phase meter. Periodical readings were received for 6/98, 8/98, 2/99, 1/99 and 5/2000. Due to acute dearth in billing staff regular bills could not be issued and an additional bill for Rs.7,124/- dated, 30-6-2000 was issued for the consumption during the period 6/98 to 5/2000 based upon the meter readings. This bill issued is legal and proper. Complainant was given instalment facility to remit the amount. The initial connected load of consumer was 4761 watts. Without permission of the Board complainant has enhanced the connected load to 7946 watts. The other allegations are denied by opposite party as false. That complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.P1 to P6 marked on her side. Opposite party has filed counter affidavit and Ext.R1 marked for opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4. Points for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.<br /> (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> The grievance of the complainant is two fold (i) that opposite party did not refund or adjust to future bills Rs.6,290/- collected in excess from complainant. (ii) the additional bill issued for Rs.7,124/- dated, 30-6-2000 is illegal.<br /> <br /> 6. The undisputed facts of the case is that the charges under Provisional Invoice Card of the complainant was enhanced to Rs.275/- from April, 1994 to February, 1997. At the time of enhancement as well as during the whole period between April, 1994 to February, 1997 admittedly the meter was faulty. Thus evidently the enhancement of charges was not based upon meter readings. It is also admitted that even after 1997 the meter readings could not be taken due to meter being faulty. The Provisional Invoice card was again revised in February, 1997 and the charges reduced to Rs.100/- per month. Complainant claims refund of the excess charges collected under the enhanced Provisional Invoice Card which was actually enhanced without any basis. It is affirmed by opposite party that they decided to assess the complainant for Rs.100/- per month for the relevant period and to give credit for the excess amount collected. Exts.P1 to P3 are repeated letters send by complainant to opposite party requesting to refund the amount of Rs.6,290/- collected in excess or to adjust it to future bills. Till date opposite party has not acceded to this genuine request. Even after receiving notice in this complaint opposite party has been quiescent and has not taken any steps to refund the amount or adjust it to future bills. For mere than a decade opposite party has illegally retained the excess amount collected from the consumer. This is nothing but sheer negligence on the part of opposite party and amounts to deficiency in service. We have no doubt to conclude that opposite party is grossly deficient in service.<br /> <br /> 7. The second allegation raised by complainant is that the adjustment bill for Rs.7,124/- dated, 30-6-2000 is illegal. Ext.P5 is this bill issued for the period 5/98 to 5/2000. Ext.R1 is the photo copy of meter readings produced by opposite party. The faulty meter was replaced on 12-5-1998 and thereafter meter readings were regularly taken. The calculations provided by opposite party proves and substantiates that Ext.P5 was issued based upon these readings. Complainant is liable to pay charges for the energy consumed by her. We do not find any illegality in the amount raised by opposite party in Ext.P5 bill. She was paying charges of Rs.100/- only under revised and reduced Provisional Invoice card. Complainant is therefore liable to pay for the excess consumption recorded in the meter. We hold that Ext.P5 is legal and proper and complainant is liable to pay the same.<br /> <br /> 8. Point (ii):-<br /> Complainant is definitely entitled to get refund of Rs.6,290/- which is the excess amount collected. Opposite party has not disputed this amount. Even after giving repeated written requests opposite party has been completely inert and inactive ignoring fully the grievance of the consumer. The deceased complainant who was 72 years old at the time of filing this complaint was dragged to a litigation unnecessarily when grievance is so simple that it could have been redressed by opposite party at the earliest. Opposite party could have given credit of the amount and adjusted the amount to Ext.P5 additional bill or future bills of complainant. The original complainant in this case died without getting any remedy during her life time. The legal heir has been burdened with the litigation and even then opposite party has not been able to wake up from their bureaucratic slumber. The facts of this case illustrates the position laid by Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta 1993 CTJ 929 (SC) CP. The Government and Government owned & managed organisations which render such monopolized services must be more sensitive and accountable to the consumers. The Kerala State Electricity Supply Code, 2005 framed under the new Electricity Act, Regulation 24(6) provides as under:<br /> “If it is established that after payment of the bill, the Licensee has overcharged the consumer, the excess amount shall be repaid, within two months with interest at twice bank rate (emphasis supplied)”.<br /> Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the financial loss suffered by the complainant for more than a decade we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.6,290/- with interest. In our view interest @ 9% per annum would not only be sufficient compensation to the complainant but will serve to better the quality of the services rendered by opposite party and bring about a change to be more consumer sensitive. The amount so to be repaid if necessary shall be adjusted to Ext.P5 bill for Rs.7,124/- if the complainant has not paid it so far. The balance shall be repaid to the complainant. All other reliefs are disallowed.<br /> <br /> 9. In the result we partly allow the complaint and order opposite parties to jointly and severally repay to the complainant Rs.6,290/- (Rupees Six thousand, two hundred and ninety only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment, together with costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 14th day of November, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.P1 to P6<br /> Ext.P1 : Photo copy of the request dated, 06-8-1997 by 1st complainant to <br /> opposite party.<br /> Ext.P2 : Photo copy of the request dated, 06-01-1998 by 1st complainant to <br /> opposite party.<br /> Ext.P3 : Photo copy of the request dated, 27-9-2000 by 1st complainant to <br /> opposite party.<br /> Ext.P4 : Photo copy of the request dated, 20-10- 2000 by 1st complainant to <br /> opposite party.<br /> Ext.P5 : Photo copy of the adjustment invoice for Rs.7,124/- dated, 30-6-2000 <br /> issued by opposite party relating to consumer No.TGI 1807<br /> Ext.P6 : Photo copy of the Order dated, 20-10-2000 by opposite party<br /> relating to consumer No.TGI 1807<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.R1<br /> Ext.R1 : Photo copy of the meter reading extract.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br />