District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 29th day of November
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Date of filing: 12/06/2009
CC. No.79/2009
Pathimma alias Beepathumma
W/o.Late Vellakutty Haji
Eralapuri
Neythala
Elapully,
Palakkad. - Complainant
(By Adv.T.P.O.Akbar Ali)
Vs
1. The Secretary
Kerala State Electricity Board
Vydhyuthi Bhavan
Pattom
Thiruvananthapuram
2. The Executive Engineer
Electrical Division
K.S.E.B, Chittur
3. The Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section,
K.S.E.Board,
Kozhinjampara
Nattukal.P.O
4. Krishi Officer
Krishi Bhavan
Elapully Panchayat
Elapully. - Opposite parties
(By Adv.L.Namassivayan for all opposite parties)
O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
Case of the complainant:
Complainant is an agricultural consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.7258 from 1990 onwards. Thereafter as per a Government Order, Kerala Government declared complete exemption of electricity charges for all the agriculturists. There was no dues in the bills issued to complainant for the period 2003-2006. Complainant received a bill dt.27/10/2006 in which in addition to the bill amount of Rs.88/-, an amount of Rs.42,168/- is shown as arrears. Meter reading is shown as 5456. Meter was not working during the period and it was also noted in the bill. Opposite parties has not taken any steps to make the meter functioning. In the bill dt.14/1/2009 received by the complainant, the meter reading shown is 5556. Complainant has received notice of disconnection on 29/01/2008, but according to the complainant there was no supply to his premises from the year 2006 onwards itself. Again complainant received a notice dt.14/01/2009 from 3rd opposite party in which amount of Rs.43,370/- was asked to pay. At the time of receipt of bill dt.27/10/2006 itself, complainant enquired with 3rd opposite party who inturn stated that complainant need not pay the bill as it was mistakenly issued. From 2006 onwards the meter and other accessories are not in a working condition. According to complainant, the act of opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part. Hence prays to set aside the bill dt.14/01/2009 and direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to complainant.
Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version contending the following:
Opposite parties admitted that complainant is an agricultural consumer of opposite parties. But opposite parties has not so far received any statement from the concerned Krishi Bhavan to the effect that complainant comes under the exempted category of agricultural consumer. Neither the complainant nor the concerned Krishi Bhavan has so far paid the electricity bills issued by opposite parties. Amount was paid upto July 1996 only. Amount due upto 2000 December was Rs.39,420/-. Thereafter from January 2001 to June 2009 due amount was Rs.43,704 (39,420 + 4,284) together with 18% interest. As no amount was paid supply was disconnected on 21/07/2005 after giving notice. According to opposite parties, they have acted as per rules only and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.
Supplementary opposite party 4, the Agricultural Officer of Krishi Bhavan, who was later impleaded has filed version contending that complainant is not an identified eligible consumer under the exempted category. As per the terms of the scheme an agricultural consumer has to make an application to the concerned Agricultural Officer who in turn inspect the genuineness and bonafide nature of the eligibility for exemption and prepare a list of them to KSEB Authorities. No such application was filed by the complainant. Further submitted that complainant herself has admitted in the complaint that she was in the habit of making payment of the electricity bills regularly. Hence no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.4.
Complainant filed affidavit. Exts.A1 to A9 series marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite parties except supplementary 4th opposite party filed affidavit. Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite parties.
Now the issues for consideration are;
1. Whether the bill dt.14/01/2009 is liable to be set aside?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. If so, what is the reliefs and cost complainant is entitled to?
Issues 1 & 2:
Complainant is challenging the bill dt.14/01/2009 for an amount of Rs.43,370/- stating that she comes under the exempted category of agricultural consumer. It is also submitted that the meter was faulty during the said period and opposite parties has taken note of the same also. Opposite parties on the other hand contented that they have not received any intimation or list from the concerned Krishi Bhavan so as to exclude the complainant from making payment.
Supplementary 4th opposite party who submits that complainant has not so far filed any application in the office for exemption. Complainant’s name is not included in the exempted category of consumers.
Heard both parties and gone through the entire evidence on record.
According to the complainant, he is entitled for exemption for agricultural consumer under the Government scheme which provides exemption irrespective of extent of agricultural land.
Opposite parties 1 to 3 has submitted that in the list of exempted consumers provided by the concerned Krishi Bhavan complainant’s name was not included. 4th opposite party the concerned Krishi Bhavan has also submitted that complainant does not come under the exempted category.
It is seen that complainant relies on Ext.B1 the Government Order to show that complainant comes under the exempted category. Ext.B1 provides exemption to all paddy cultivators irrespective of their extent of the land with retrospective effect. It is true that the said scheme provides exemption to the paddy cultivators but for availing the benefit, there should be some correspondence between the complainant and 4th opposite party which is lacking here. No evidence is adduced on the part of complainant to show that he has applied for the said benefits. On the other hand list of exempted consumers produced by 4th opposite party though not marked shows that the complainant is not an exempted consumer. Hence the stand of the complainant that he comes under the exempted category is not proved.
Further regarding the legality of the bill issued, complainant alleges that the meter was faulty and opposite parties has taken note of it also. Exts.A1 to A5 bill for the period 2005 to August 2006 and Ext.A9 series bills for the period October 2006 to September 2009 clearly shows that meter was faulty during the whole period. Even then opposite party has not taken any steps to rectify the defect. As per Section 33 of K.S.E.Board Terms & Conditions of Supply, 2005 (1) “Meter reading will be taken by the employees or the persons authorized by the Board and record the same and (2) If the Board is unable to raise a bill on meter reading due to its non-recording or malfunctioning, the Board shall issue a bill based on the previous six months average consumption. In such cases the meter shall be replaced within one month. If the average consumption for the previous six months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason, the consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding three months after replacement of meter”.
Hence we find that opposite party failed to comply the said provision. Available evidence shows that meter is faulty from the year 2005 onwards. We are not aware of the position prior to that as there is no evidence to that effect. It is clear from Ext.A4 series that opposite party has failed to replace the same for many years.
Opposite parties has further submitted that supply was disconnected on 21/07/2005. But Ext.A8 notice dt.14/01/2009 shows that it was not disconnected on 21/07/2005.
We find that the bill issued is without any basis and there is deficiency in service on the part of 3rd opposite party. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of 4th opposite party and hence 4th opposite party is exonerated from any liability as per the order.
Hence complaint allowed. We order the following.
1. Demand notice dt.14/01/2009 is set aside.
2. Faulty meter of complainant premises shall be replaced with a new one within a month from the date of receipt of order.
3. No order as to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of November, 2010
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Bill dt.07/08/2003 for Rs.88/-
Ext.A2 - Bill dt.04/08/2005 for Rs.88/-
Ext.A3 - Bill dt.04/10/2005 for Rs.88/-
Ext.A4 - Bill dt.03/12/2005 for Rs.88/-
Ext.A5 - Bill dt.21/08/2006 for Rs.88/-
Ext.A6 – Notice dt.21/07/2005
Ext.A7 - Notice dt.14/08/2006
Ext.A8 - Notice dt.14/01/2009
Ext.A9 series – Bills (17 in Nos.)
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Photocopy of Order dt.25/02/1999 issued by Kerala State Electricity Board
Cost (Not allowed)
