DATE OF FILING :11.12.2009.

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.235/2009

Between

Complainant : 1. C.G. Gopy,

Chuzhikkarayil House,

Ellakkallu P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: V.M. Joy Mon)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydyuthi Bhavan,

Pattom P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram District.

2. The Executive Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Section, Adimaly,

Adimaly P.O.,

Idukki District.

3. The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Section, Rajakumari,

Rajakumari P.O.,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
 

The complainant availed a domestic electric connection from the opposite party in the year 1985 as consumer number 9772. The complainant is paying the bill for the same promptly after availing the connection. The bills were issued after due inspection of the meter reader every month. On 11.11.2009, an excess bill of Rs.2,136/- was issued from the opposite party office. The reason stated for the bill is that it is charged for the period when the meter was faulty. The meter reader was inspecting the premises in every month and when the complainant noticed that the meter is faulty, the complainant filed an application before the opposite party to change the defective meter. The complainant is promptly paying the bills which were issued from the opposite party, but the opposite party issued an hike bill which is not entitled to pay by the complainant. Hence the petition is filed for cancelling the bill issued by the opposite party.

2. The opposite party filed a written version and admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as consumer No.9772 under tariff IA. The electric connection was given on 16.2.1985. The energy meter installed in his premises was faulty for the period from 12/04 to 10/2008. An average consumption of 52 units were taken for the purpose of billing during the said period. The fact that the meter was faulty was recorded in the demand notice issued to him from time to time. The office records of the opposite party shows that no request for change of meter has been filed by the consumer. The faulty energy meter was changed on 19.11.2008. The energy consumption recorded in the new meter shows a drastic increase of 107 units of average bimonthly consumption. As per Board Order dated 21.3.2009, the reassessment of faulty meter shall be done for the whole period in which the meter was faulty. Accordingly reassessment was made taking 107 units as bimonthly consumption during the faulty meter period. The consumer is bond to pay an additional cost of 55 units for the faulty meter period which comes to 48 months (107 units – 52 units = 55 units). The cost of 1320 units (55 x 24 bimonthly = 1320 units) is calculated to be Rs.2,136/- (Rs.89 x 24 = 2,136). The back assessment bill issued to the consumer is not a penal bill. It is the cost of excess consumed energy by him for the meter faulty period from 12/04 to 10/2008. The average consumption during the faulty meter period is taken, based on the average consumption after the meter is changed. Which is very reasonable criterion taken by Kerala State Electricity Board. There is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence is adduced by the opposite party and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT :- The complainant was paying his electricity bills promptly without any due. The opposite party was also issuing regular bill without delay. Eventhough the opposite party issued a bill for Rs.2,136/- to the complainant, which the complainant is not entitled to pay. The complainant is examined as PW1. The bill issued by the opposite party is marked as Ext.P1. The bill issued by the opposite party prior to that bill is marked as Ext.P2 which is for Rs.112/-. The meter was faulty and an application for changing the same was given to the opposite party's office by the PW1 when he noticed the same. The opposite party changed the meter as per the application. In the bills issued to the PW1, it was written that the meter was working. Several times the complainant made application to the 3^rd opposite party for changing the meter. The learned counsel for the opposite party cross examined the complainant and he admitted that T.V., mixi and 4 bulbs were also using by the complainant from 2008 onwards. Ext.R1 is the statement of calculation of back assessment bill of the consumer from 12/04 to 10/2008. Ext.R3 is the meter reading register of the opposite party.
 

The complainant was promptly paying the bill issued by the opposite party without any due. The opposite party was also inspecting the matter by the meter reader in every month and the bills were issued after the same. When the complainant noticed that the meter was faulty, he filed an application to change the same to the opposite party, several times. But the opposite party never turned up. After the expiry of the period of 4 years, the opposite party issued a bill which is Ext.P1 and it is written in that bill with the back assessment for the faulty meter period from 12/04 to 10/08. It was issued on 11.11.2009. As per the opposite party, the meter was faulty, so the Board Order No.(FM)/793/09(DPC-II/Replacement of Faulty & Sluggish Meters/2007/09) dated 21.3.2009, the reassessment of faulty meters shall be done for the whole period in which meter was faulty. The accordingly reassessment was made taking 107 units as bimonthly consumption during the faulty meter period. So the consumer is bound to pay the additional cost of 55 units for the faulty meter period which comes to 48 months. And thus the bill was arrived at Rs.2,136/-. But as per Ext.R3, the meter reading register of the consumer number kept in the opposite party's office, it is recorded that the meter reading on 8/07 is 1866, on 10/07 is 1894, on 12/07 is 1914, on 2/08 is 1933, on 4/08 is 1942, on 6/08 is 1945, on 14/8/08 is 1945, and on 16/10/08 is 1945. So there is a consumption of electricity as per the meter reading register produced by the opposite party on 10/07, 12/07, 12/08 etc., the meter reader of the opposite party was duly inspected the meter and it was not challenged by the opposite party. As per the opposite party the meter was faulty for a period of more than 4 years. So we think that in the register produced by the opposite party shows that the meter was working. But they issued a bill with Rs.2,136/- for the period for the back assessment for faulty meter. On the period from 12/04 to 10/08 and the bill is for Rs.2,136/-. The opposite party as per written version contended that the meter was changed on 19.11.2008. The Ext.P1 bill was issued to the complainant for an amount of Rs.2,136/- as on 11.11.2009. The meter was faulty for a period of 4 years and the matter was intimated to the opposite party by the consumer. The meter reader of the opposite party was also inspected the meter in every month. So it is the duty of the opposite party to change the meter if the meter is faulty and it was not done for a very long period of 4 years. It is also admitted by the opposite party. If a balance assessment is given, that should be done with average consumption of 6 months. It is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party that such a long delay caused to change the energy meter and the consumer is not liable for the same. PW1 was promptly paying the bills as per the bills issued by the opposite party after taking the meter reading. Ext.P2 bill issued by the opposite party after changing the meter on 19.11.2008, shows that the consumption of 74 units and bill is issued for Rs.197/-. So we think that the calculation done by the opposite party is not correct. And we think it is not proper to issue such a bill to the complainant.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to cancel the bill issued to the complainant which is Ext.P1 and pay Rs.1,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of February, 2010.

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
 

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - C.G. Gopy.

On the side of the Opposite parties :

DW1 - Hevin Pereira. D.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The bill dated 11.11.2009, issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.P2 - The bill dated 15.12.2008, issued by the opposite party to the complainant and the cash receipt No.104, for the same.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Ext.R1 - The statement of calculation of the back assessment bill of consumer No.9772 issued by the opposite party.

Ext.R2 - Copy of the Order No.B.O.(FM)No.793/2009(DPC.II/Replacement of Faulty & Sluggish Meters/2007/09) dated Thiruvananthapuram, 21.3.2009,

                issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board.

Ext.R3 - Copy of the Meter Reading Register of the opposite party.