1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Energy period Charges for the entire period Total (Rs.)
month units rate
5/98 to 1/99 9 x 246 x Rs. 3.13 6929.80
2/99 to 5/99 4 x 246 x Rs. 3.45 3394.80
6/99 to 11/2000 18 x 246 x Rs. 4.90 21697.20
Balance units 22 x Rs. 4.90 107.80
-----------------
Total 32129.60
==========
Amount of current charges remitted @ 60 units per
month from 5/98 to 11/2000 = 4944.60
-----------------
Balance amount towards current charges 27185.00
Duty @ 10% 2718.00
-----------------
29904.00
==========
As the above demand was raised as the value of energy actually consumed at the premises, the complainant is bound to honour the same. After the introduction of bi-monthly spot billing system also the average consumption is at the above mentioned level which fully justifies the earlier assessment. Bimonthly spot bill with effect from 01/01. On 05.01.2001 bimonthly consumption was 271 units. On 14.03.2001 320 units, on 16.05.2001 226 units, on 10.07.2001 161 units. If complainant is unable to pay the bill amount in lumpsum, opposite parties are prepared to give instalment facility if he desires to avail the same. Opposite parties had acted as per rules and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that would arise for consideration are:-
(i)Whether the complaint is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act 1986?
(ii)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
(iii)Reliefs and costs.
On the part of complainant, complainant as PW1 filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. On the part of opposite parties, proof affidavit not filed. Exts. D1 and D2 were marked.
Points (i) to (iii) :- The first point requiring consideration is whether the complaint is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. By the reasons of the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is evident that remedies provided under Consumer Protection Act are not in derogation of those provided under other laws. The remedy provided under Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the provisions of any othe law for the time being in force. The predecessors of this Forum entertained this complaint and opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. Now around 6 years have been lapsed after filing this complaint. At this stage if the complaint is allowed to be referred to the statutory authority the very purpose of the complaint would further be delayed. On the strength of Sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Forum views that this complaint is maintainable. The next point to be discussed is whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The case of the complainant is that complainant is a consumer under the Electrical Major Section, Vellarada with Consumer No. 7448 installed in his petty teashop and panshop. The tariff of the said shop is put under VII D and complainant was regularly paying the slab amount of Rs. 243 and he was allowed to use 60 units per month. But meter reading was not regularly taken by the opposite parties. This would be evident from meter card issued by the opposite parties. Ext. P1 is the provisional invoice card which shows that average consumption per month was 60 units from 2/99 to 6/99. Tariff was LT VII D and monthly estimated amount was Rs. 243/-. As per note 3 of Ext P1 the meter reading will be taken once in a half year. As per the note 4 of Ext. P1 if the amount estimated as per meter reading exceeds as per the amount stated in the provisional invoice card, opposite party would issue special adjustment invoice to the complainant and complainant will be liable to pay the excess amount. As per note 7 of Ext. P1, on the basis of special adjustment invoice, opposite party would redetermine the average consumption per month. As per Ext. P1 complainant had been remitting the monthly slab amount from 23.02.1999 to 07.12.2000. Ext. P2 is the premises meter card of the complainant. It would be useful if we assess pattern of energy consumption as per Ext. P2. Ext. P2 would show that on 08/1997 the meter reading was 2200, on 02/98 the meter reading 2200, on 08/99 it rose to 4482, on 02/2000 it rose to 6000 and on 08/2000 meter reading was 7435. As per Ext. P2 from 08/97 to 02/98 meter reading remained stagnant. The counsel appearing for complainant submitted that during the said period the shops were closed. Hence there was no rise in meter reading. But to substantiate that aspect no evidence was adduced by the complainant. The submission by the counsel of opposite parties is that complainant has suppressed the fact that the meter was changed on 24.04.1998. As per Ext. D1, the meter in complainant had changed on 24.04.2008. With the installation of new meter, meter reading started from "0". And as a part of introduction of bimonthly spot billing system, cut off reading was taken during 11/2000. Ext. P3 is the spot bill dated 05.01.2001. From 11/2000 to 01/2001 (bimonthly bill) complainant had consumed 271 units for which the bill amount was Rs. 1511/-. Complainant admitted that he had paid the said bill amount. The counsel of complainant would submit that Ext. P3 is the additional bill issued by opposite parties. A perusal of Ext. P3 would clearly reveal that Ext. P3 is not an additional bill, but spot bill which bears the signaure of the spot biller. Ext. P4 is the adjustment invoice dated 12.03.2001 issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. Adjustment invoice is seen prepared for 31 months from 24.04.1998 (the date of installation of new meter) to 11/2000(the date of introduction of spot billing system). As per Ext. P4, from 24.04.1998 to 11/2000 complainant had consumed 7648 units for which current charge estimated was Rs. 32129/-. After adjustment of the remitted amount by the complainant, the arrear amount as per Ext. P4 is Rs. 29904/-. Adjustment invoice as per Ext. P4 is a clear violation of the note 3 of Ext. P1. Note 3 of Ext. P1 would declare that 1st opposite party would take meter reading once in 6 months(half a year). Ext. P4 would reveal that meter reading in the complainant's shop was taken after 31 months. It is not clear from the version that what prevented opposite parties from taking meter reading once in six months as per note 3 of Ext. P1. No affidavit explaining this was filed by the opposite party. Even no attempt was made by the opposite parties to cross-examine the complainant. There is no case on the part of opposite parties that complainant is a defaulter. Complainant in his affidavit affirmed that he was regularly remitting the slab amount. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext. P3 complainant had remitted a bill amount of Rs. 1511/-. Ext. P3 bill was issued when the spot billing system was in force. What prevented the spot biller to measure excess consumption on or prior to 05.01.2001(the date of first spot billing). There may be negligence or collusion by subordinate staff in not properly recording the meter reading on time, that would be deficiency in service under COPRA. It is settled position that for asking a consumer to pay the arrear there is no limitation. However if those arrears are not paid by the consumer, there is a right with the Electricity Board to disconnect the electric supply after giving one week's notice to the consumer. Opposite parties are entitled to raise just demand. Here the amount demanded as per Ext. P4 is about Rs. 29904/- after adjusting amount of Rs. 4944.60 which was paid earlier. On going through the contention in the complaint, affidavit of PW1, version and Exts. P1 to P4 and D1 and D2 we are of the view that additional bill as per Ext. P4 is genuine one. But opposite parties shall pay the complainant Rs. 5000/- as compensation for not raising the demand in time. The said amount shall be adjusted against the additional bill amount of Rs. 29904/- and the balance of Rs. 24404/- which the complainant shall pay in 5 monthly instalments from the date of this order. In view of the above the complaint is allowed in part.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th April, 2008.
G. SIVAPRASAD,
President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 143/2001
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - True copy of Provisional Invoice Card of Consumer Card No. 7448.
P2 - True copy of premises meter card
P3 - True copy of Bill No. BP 448675 dtd.05.01.2001
