IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 7th day of May, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 178/2011 (Filed on 12.08.2011)
Between:
Rajan Philip, Kochukuzhiyil, Chunakkara,
Kottankudi, Ezhumattoor P.O.,
Mallappally. … Complainant.
(By Adv. Abhilash. C.A.)
And:
1. Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Asst. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Sub Division,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Mallappally.
3. Asst. Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaipur P.O. … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts stated in the complaint is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties being the beneficiary of consumer No.5099-6 under Electrical Sub Division, Mallappally in the name of deceased C.P. Varghese. His average electricity bill was in between ` 137 and 306 and he is not a defaulter for any electricity bills. His bimonthly consumption from 2/2010 to 6/2010 is in between 121 units and 169 units. While so, he was served with the electricity bill for `8,209 alleging that his consumption is 1408 units from 6/2010 to 8/2010. According to the complainant, the reading found in the said bill is wrong due to the defect of the meter. So he made a complaint for rectifying the defect of the meter and to issue a fresh bill. But the opposite parties have not taken any action to the complaint by saying that there is earthing and leakage in the connection. Therefore, for the non-payment of the alleged bill, the complainant’s electric connection was disconnected. Thereafter opposite parties issued several bills with different calculations demanding the payment subject to the complainant’s complaint regarding the bill dated 10.08.2010. Some of the bills were paid by the complainant in full and some of the bills were paid in part. Due to the part payment and non-payment of the bills, opposite parties disconnected and reconnected the complainant’s electric connection on several occasions. According to the complainant, in his premises there is no earthing and leakage as alleged by the opposite parties and the electric meter at his premises is defective. Hence the actions of the opposite parties in issuing illegal bills and disconnection of his electric supply is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and other inconveniences and the opposite parties are liable for the same to the complainant. Hence this complaint for the realization of ` 1,00,000 as compensation and for setting aside the illegal bills and for the refund of the excess amount collected from him.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions: It is admitted that the complainant is a consumer and the consumption noted in the bills dated 2/10, 4/2010 and 6/2010. But they denied the complainant’s claim that he is not a defaulter. Opposite parties further admitted the issuance of all the bills in question and the allegation of the disconnection and the reconnection raised by the complainant and contended that the said bills and the disconnections and reconnections are legal and are as per the rules. According to the opposite parties, the dispute arose on the bill dated 10.08.2010 wherein the consumption is 1408 units and the charges for the said consumption is ` 8,209. The correctness of the bill was disputed by the complainant and on the basis of the complaint, an inspection was conducted on 22.08.2010 and the inspection revealed that there is earth leakage at the consumer’s installation and it was intimated to the complainant and he was asked to rectify it. In order to convince the consumer, a test meter was also connected to the system from 28.09.2010 to 11.10.2010. At that time, the consumer purposefully refrained from using electricity by shifting his occupation from the premises and hence the consumption was zero on both meters. It was also informed that if he remits the required fees, the meter can be further examined. But the complainant did not turn up.
4. As per the Electricity Rules, any leakage of current as assessed by the Board shall be charged at the respective tariff applicable to the concerned connection. So the consumer is liable to the amount demanded. But the complainant had paid only ` 306 as money order. Since the complainant had made a payment though deficient, opposite parties did not disconnect the supply as there is a dispute against the bill in question. The subsequent meter reading was taken on 09.10.2010 shows consumption of 896 units and due to the dispute of the complainant against the correctness of the meter, the contract meter reader was constrained to issue bill for average consumption of ` 284. The complainant remitted the said amount on 19.10.2010. Subsequently the bill was revised on the basis of actual consumption. The statement of the complainant that his average consumption is below 200 units is false. Thereafter, new bill dated 10.12.2010 for ` 3,970 less the amount paid was issued for the reading taken on 09.10.2010 excluding the previous arrears. Thereafter, a bill dated 08.02.2011 issued for an amount of ` 10,912 including the entire arrears due from the complainant. But he had not paid the bill amount in total instead he remitted ` 306 as money order. For the non-payment of the full amount, electric supply was disconnected on 05.03.2011. Subsequently on 05.04.2011, a bill for ` 4,112 was issued which was paid by the complainant. But the said bill is issued without including the previous arrears. For the non-payment of the back arrears, his connection was not reconnected though he had paid the bill dated 05.04.2011.
5. While so on 26.04.2011, the complainant approached the opposite party and filed an application requesting for reconnection by undertaking to pay the balance amount within one month and on the basis of the undertaking, supply was reconnected on 26.04.2011. In spite of the undertaking made by the complainant, he had not remitted the arrears. So his connection was again disconnected on 25.05.2011. Thereafter, a bill dated 04.06.2011 for an amount of ` 7,348 inclusive of the prior arrears and the electricity charge for the consumption during that month was issued. This bill was also not cleared by the complainant. Thereafter as per the direction of this Hon’ble Forum, his connection was reconnected on 30.06.2011. All the bills were issued on the basis of the actual consumption. In order to accommodate the grievances of the complainant, certain bills were issued with splitted amount. From this it is clear that the complainant was given opportunity for clearing his dues. But he failed to clear the dues. All the disconnections are for the non-payment of the demanded bill amount. Parallel meters installed twice for verifying the correctness of the meter. Even now, the very same meter is using at the consumer’s premises and is showing only correct reading of consumption. The disputed readings of consumption were shown only during the period when the complainant’s installation was defective and thereafter the energy meter is showing the correct consumption. Hence the allegation that energy meters are defective is wrong. At present, the complainant had no complaint about the consumption recorded in the energy meter. An amount of ` 7,348 is due from the complainant as on 04.06.2011 and he is liable to pay the said amount. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost as they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DWs.1 and 2 and Exts. A1 to A13 and B1 to B6 series. After closure of evidence, both sides filed argument notes and they were heard.
7. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that opposite parties issued illegal electricity bills based on the reading taken in the faulty meter in the premises of the complainant. The complainant’s complaint against the said bills and about the faulty meter was not resolved by the opposite parties. For the non-redressal of the complainant’s grievances, he had not paid the entire electricity bills demanded by the opposite parties which resulted in the disconnection of the complainant’s electric connection. The above said acts of the opposite parties is deficiency in service which caused mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 13 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A13. Ext. A1 is the electricity bill dated 09.02.2010 for ` 201 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A2 is the electricity bill dated 12.04.2010 for `137 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A3 is the electricity bill dated 11.06.2010 for ` 306 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A4 is the Electricity bill dated 10.08.2010 for ` 8,209 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A5 is the photocopy of the letter dated 13.08.2010 sent by the consumer to the third opposite party. Ext.A6 is the photocopy of the letter dated 13.01.2011 issued by the consumer to the third opposite party. Ext.A7 is the electricity bill dated 09.10.2010 for ` 284 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A8 is the electricity bill dated 10.12.2010 for ` 3,970 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A9 is the electricity bill dated 08.02.2011 for ` 10,912 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A10 is the electricity bill dated 05.04.2011 for ` 4,112 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A11 is the receipt dated 18.04.2011 for ` 4,215 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A12 is the electricity bill dated 04.06.2011 for ` 7,348 issued by the opposite parties and Ext.A13 is the use and care guide with warranty of Whirlpool refrigerator.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that all the bills issued to the complainant and all the actions taken by the opposite parties are legal and the allegations of the complainant that his meter is faulty is false. The meter in the premises of the complainant is without any defect. The excess consumption shown during 8/2010 and 10/2010 was due to the earthing of his installation. On the basis of the complaint of the complainant, his premises was inspected and found that there is earthing and the complainant was asked to rectify the earthing. Further for convincing the complainant, parallel meters were installed twice which shows no defects in the meter. Even then the complainant was not satisfied with the bills issued by the opposite parties and he opted for not paying the dues which resulted in the disconnection. The complainant is having a dues of ` 7,348 as on 04.06.2011 and he is liable to pay the said amount. Thus they argued that there is no deficiency of service from their part.
10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, second opposite party and a Sub Engineer of the second opposite party filed proof affidavits in lieu of their chief examination along with 6 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavits, they were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. B1 to B6 series. Ext. B1 is the photocopy of the test report. Ext. B2 is the photocopy of the disconnection register. Ext. B3 is the relevant portion of Ext. B2 disconnection register. Ext. B4 is the electricity bill dated 09.10.2010 for ` 4,167 issued by the opposite parties. Ext. B5 is the photocopy of the letter sent by the complainant to the third opposite party. Ext. B6 is the electricity bill dated 04.08.2011for ` 7,433 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant and Ext. B6(a) is the electricity bill dated 07.10.2011 for ` 7,518 sent by the opposite parties to the complainant.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the actual dispute between the parties is with regard to the performance of the meter in the premises of the complainant. According to the complainant, his meter is defective whereas the contention of the opposite parties is that the meter is perfect. The complainant’s argument that the meter is defective is based on the vast variations in the consumption recorded from 02/2010 to 06/2011. The opposite parties’ contention that the meter is not defective is based on the inspection conducted by them on 13.08.2010 and on the finding that there is earthing in the installation..
12. On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties, we have verified the consumptions recorded in Exts. A1, A2, A3, A4, A7, A8, A9, A10, A12 and B6 series electricity bills. The reading shown in Exts. A1 to A3 are in between 88 and 169 units. In Ext. A4, the consumption is 1408 units and in Ext. A7, the consumption is 896 units. At the same time, the reading in Ext. A8 is less than 5 units from the previous reading recorded in Ext. A7. As per Ext. A9, the consumption is 2 units and in Exts. A10 and A11, the consumption is zero. In Ext. B6, the consumption is 39 units and in Ext. B6(a), the consumption is zero and Ext. B6(b), the consumption is 98 units. The said variations in the consumption recorded in the electricity bills particularly the minus reading recorded in Ext. A8 shows that the efficiency and the performance of the electricity meter in question is not sound. This indicates that the electricity meter in the premises of the complainant is defective one. At the same time, the opposite parties are relying on Ext. B1 test report prepared by DW2 for substantiating their contention that the meter in question is not defective. As per the deposition of DW2, he inspected the site and prepared the report in the absence of the complainant and in the presence of an immediate neighbour of the complainant. On a perusal of Ext. B1 test report, it is not attested by any other independent witnesses including the immediate neighbour of the complainant. Further, the opposite parties failed to prove the genuineness of Ext. B1. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept Ext. B1 report as a better evidence. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the contention of the complainant that his meter is defective from 06/2010 onwards. Moreover, the bills issued after arising the dispute are not proper, as certain bills includes arrears and certain other bills issued without arrears and like that. So we are constrained to set aside all the above said improper bills issued after 06/2010 based on the readings taken from a defective meter. However, the complainant is liable to pay the charges for the consumed electricity and the opposite parties are entitled to receive the charges of the actual consumption. But the consumption found in the meter cannot be taken into account for the reasons stated herein above. So the opposite parties can charge the complainant on the basis of the average consumption recorded for the period from 07.12.2009 to 11.06.2010, the period in which the meter reading reflects correct consumption.
13. The dispute between the parties with regard to the accuracy of the meter is settled with the above directions. The other disputes regarding the inconveniences and other difficulties sustained to the complainant due to the unwarranted actions of the opposite parties is also considered by us. But the facts and circumstances of this case lead us to the conclusion that the complainant is also equally responsible for the same as his modus of payment of electricity bills are not acceptable as per the Electricity Rules. So, we are not inclined to allow compensation and cost to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint can be allowed as follows:
14. In the result, this complaint is allowed as follows:
(1) All the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties from 8/2010 onwards are hereby set aside.
(2) The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh bills for the consumption from 11.06.2010 onwards on the basis of the average monthly consumption from 07.12.2009 to 11.06.2010. The opposite parties are also directed to adjust the bill amounts remitted by the complainant from 08/2010 onwards including the remittance made by the complainant as per the order in I.A.141/2011.
(3) The opposite parties are directed to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in Open Forum on this the 7th day of May, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Rajan Philip.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Electricity bill dated 09.02.2010 for Rs.201 issued by the
opposite parties.
A2 : Electricity bill dated 12.04.2010 for Rs.137 issued by the
opposite parties.
A3 : Electricity bill dated 11.06.2010 for Rs.306 issued by the
opposite parties.
A4 : Electricity bill dated 10.08.2010 for Rs.8,209 issued by the
opposite parties.
A5 : Photocopy of the letter dated 13.08.2010 sent by the
consumer to the third opposite party.
A6 : Photocopy of the letter dated 13.01.2011 issued by the
consumer to the third opposite party.
A7 : Electricity bill dated 09.10.2010 for Rs.284 issued by the
opposite parties.
A8 : Electricity bill dated 10.12.2010 for Rs.3,970 issued by the
opposite parties.
A9 : Electricity bill dated 08.02.2011 for Rs.10,912 issued by the
opposite parties.
A10 : Electricity bill dated 05.04.2011 for Rs.4,112 issued by the
opposite parties.
A11 : Receipt dated 18.04.2011 for Rs.4,215 issued by the
opposite parties.
A12 : Electricity bill dated 04.06.2011 for Rs.7,348 issued by the
opposite parties.
A13 : Use and care guide with warranty of Whirlpool refrigerator.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Lijimole. V. Varghese.
DW2 : Suresh. K.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the test report.
B2 : Photocopy of the disconnection register.
B3 : Relevant portion of Ext. B2 disconnection register.
B4 : Electricity bill dated 09.10.2010 for Rs. 4,167 issued by the
opposite parties.
B5 : Photocopy of the letter sent by the consumer to the third
opposite party.
B6 : Electricity bill dated 04.08.2011 issued by the opposite
parties to the complainant.
B6(a) : Electricity bill dated 07.10.2011 sent by the opposite parties
to the complainant.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Rajan Philip, Kochukuzhiyil, Chunakkara,
Kottankudi, Ezhumattoor P.O., Mallappally. (2) Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(3)Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division,
Kerala State Electricity Board, Mallappally.
(4)Asst. Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaipur P.O.
(5)The Stock File.
