By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant who is a consumer under opposite party for the supply of electricity to his Small scale industrial Unit named as G.Tec Rubbers is aggrieved by issuance of a short assessment bill for Rs.1,25,944/- dated, 11-4-2008. It is averred that complainant used to pay the regular bills without any default. That the bill has no nexus with the consumption of energy and is issued without any legal basis. That complainant is not liable to pay this amount and hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service.

2. Opposite party filed version admitting the complaint to be a consumer. It is submitted that on 09-4-2008 the Assistant Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad Regional Unit, Palakkad conducted a surprise inspection of the premises along with the Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Manjeri North. That on testing the three phase meter by means of heating load it was found that the 1^st and 2^nd phase of the power meter were not working and only the third phase was working. That therefore only 1/3^rd of the actual consumption was recorded in the meter. ON checking by means of a Standard meter the percentage error was detected as – 71.67% including the usual mechanical error. That the meter box was opened in presence of Sri. Baburaj of the industrial unit and it was found that two phases were not working. That a Site Mahazar was prepared. That there is considerable short fall in consumption from 10/2007 onwards. Hence short assessment bill for that period was prepared and issued to the consumer. That there is no deficiency in service and complainant is liable to pay the amount.

3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 marked for complainant. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts.B1 and B2 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

4. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether opposite parties are deficient in service.

(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.

5. Point (i):-

Complainant challenges the bill for rs.1,25,944/- dated, 11-4-2008 which is Ext.A3.

6. It is say of complainant that the Sub Engineer used to take periodical meter readings and issue bills prepared in accordance with the energy consumption recorded in the meter. The complainant had paid all such bills issued regularly by opposite party. It is submitted that the meter was not faulty and that the bill is issued arbitrarily without any basis.

7. The complaint is resisted by opposite party stating that though meter readings were taken by concerned officials of the Board it is not possible to check the correctness of the meter every month. Opposite party relied upon Ext.B1 site mahazar and contended that during the inspection by officials of the Board on 09-4-2008 it was found that two phases of the power meter was not working and not recording consumption. After checking with standard meter the percentage error was found to be – 71.67%. That due tot he above defect of the meter only 1/3^rd consumption was being recorded. That Ext.B2 meter reading register would show that there is considerable short fall in the consumption recorded from 10/2007. That this is due to the meter being faulty after 10/07 and therefore A3 bill was issued as short assessment for the period from 10/07 to 3/08.

8. Opposite party does not have a case that there was theft of electricity or that meter was interfered in any manner by the consumer. There is no allegation of misuse of energy. The case putforward by opposite party is that on inspection it was found that the meter was faulty and that it was recording only 1/3^rd of the consumption. Complainant denies the meter to be faulty and submits that regular bills were issued by opposite party basing upon the meter readings which which would go to show that the meter was not faulty. It is also submitted by complainant that the Small Scale Industrial Unit Works seasonally on the availability of Rubber and that the variation in consumption occurs when the unit has less working days. It is affirmed that the details of working days are available from the muster roll maintained in the establishment. Apart from Ext.B1 mahazar which is a document prepared by opposite party there is no other evidence to corroborate the contention of opposite party that the meter was faulty. Admittedly the alleged defective meter was replaced on 29-4-2008 by an electronic meter. Opposite party has not send the defect alleged meter to a Electrical Inspector and obtained expert report regarding the defect/error of meter. It was also submitted by counsel for complainant that the method of testing the correctness of the meter adopted by opposite party is not as per Regulations. As per Ext.B1 mahazar it is stated that the meter was checked by heating load method. The method of checking as per 42(2) of Kerala state electricity Board Conditions of Supply is by using a standard meter. In Ext.B1 though opposite parties have stated they checked using a standard meter it is not stated what is the reading of the original meter and standard meter at the time of starting the checking and the readings of the respective meters at the end of checking. Only the readings of power meter and light meter at the time of inspection is seen noted. Thus there is no sufficient evidence to substantiate the contention that meter was checked and found to be faulty. Thus it is seen that opposite party has unilaterally gathered evidence and come to a conclusion that the meter is faulty.

9. At this juncture, the decision reported by High Court of Kerala in George Joseph Vs. K.S.E.B. 2008(4) KLT 610 decided on 14-10-2008 is note worthy. It is held therein:-

“If the Board wants to raise a bill on the plea that it is a defective meter, Board has to resort to sec.26(6) and refer the dispute to Electrical Inspector.”

It is further held,

“The Board has unilaterally come to a conclusion that one phase of the meter was not recording consumption, purported to have corrected the meter themselves, without first referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector and raised demand for additional electricity charges from the petitioner on that ground.”

10. Though the facts correlate to the present case, the provision of law considered, Sec.26(6) is no longer in force. After the commencement of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 the provisions of the new Act is applicable and we are unable to apply the above ratio in toto.

11. Opposite party has no case that the meter was totally stuck or that it was not recording consumption. Their case is that the meter was not recording correctly. In other words the meter was incorrect. Regulation 42 and 43 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 provides for the accuracy of meters. In our view, the above regulations gives right tot he consumer to raise objection regarding status of meter. It is intended to safeguard the interest of consumers against the unilateral and arbitrary actions of the Board. When an officer of the Board enters the premises, declares the meter to be faulty unilaterally, and issues a bill the consumer should not be left without a remedy. When consumer has disputed the meter to be correct then opposite party ought to have send the meter for test and report of Electrical Inspector. After such inspection as per Regulation 42(2) it is for the Electrical Inspector to decide the period during which the meter shall be deemed to have been incorrect and the amount of energy supplied for that period to the consumer. Opposite party in this case has imaginarily fixed the period from 10/07 to 3/08 as period during which meter is faulty. Except the unilateral actions of opposite party there is no cogent evidence to prove that the meter was faulty. Opposite party has failed to establish and prove that the meter was faulty. Therefore Ext.A3 bill is only to be set aside. Even after paying regular bills the complainant has been issued with a huge short assessment bill. There should be a finality for the charges collected from the consumer by the service provides. Section 56(2) intends to bring this finality upon the charges demanded by the board. It is for the Board to maintain the meter correctly. In case any fault is detected it has to be replaced immediately. The consumer cannot be burdened for the omission on the part of Board. As per Regulation 33(2) of Conditions of Supply a faulty meter has to be replaced within one month. Here, the opposite party was issuing regular bills. It is not a case where opposite party was unable to raise bill due to defect of meter. If the contention of opposite party is accepted then opposite party was issuing bills basing upon a defective meter. This itself is deficiency in service. From the foregoing discussions we hold that Ext.A3 bill is issued without any basis and is illegal. Issuance of a bill which has no nexus with the actual energy consumed is deficiency in service. We find opposite parties deficient in service.

12. Point (ii):-

We have already discussed that Ext.A3 bill has to be cancelled and that complainant is not liable to pay the same. In our opinion cancellation of the above bill would be adequate relief tot he complainant. Any amount paid by complainant towards the bill shall be refunded to the complainant by opposite parties. Complainant is at liberty to have such refundable amount adjusted to the future electricity bills if any of the electricity connections owned by him.

13. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and order that Ext.A3 bill for Rs.1,25,944/0 (Rupees One lakh, twenty five thousand, nine hundred and forty four only) dated, 11-4-2008 is cancelled. Any amount paid by complainant towards this bill shall be refunded tot he complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Complainant is at liberty to file application before the concerned officer to have such refundable amount adjusted to the future electricity bills of any of his electricity connections. We make no order as to costs.

 

Dated this 5th day of May, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5

Ext.A1 : Carbon copy of the Site mahazar dated, 09-4-2008 prepared by

Sri. Srinivas, Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Manjeri North.

Ext.A2 : Letter dated, 11-4-2008 send by 2^nd opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A3 : Demand Notice cum Disconnection Notice dated, 11-4-2008

for Rs.1,25,944/- issued by 5^th opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A4 : Receipt for Rs.6,325/- dated, 12-5-2008 from opposite party to complainant

Ext.A5 : Receipt for Rs.37,000/- dated, 26-9-2008 from opposite party to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2

Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the Site mahazar dated, 09-4-2008 prepared by

Sri. Srinivas, Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Manjeri North.

Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the extract of meter reading relating to consumer

No.20324-9

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER