BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 523/2000 Filed on 06.10.2000

Dated : 16.03.2009

Complainant:

R. Balakrishnan Nadar, Vrindavan, Karumplavila, Thalayal, Balaramapuram P.O.

(By adv. Manacaud K. Radhakrishnan Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kattakkada.

(By adv. K.P. Renadive)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 08.10.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 16.02.2009, the Forum on 16.03.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 8422 under Kattakkada Electrical Section, that complainant is very punctual in paying the electricity bill and the same was doing regularly without any default, that adjustment invoice dated 23.04.2000 for Rs. 18566/- and a demand and disconnection notice were issued to the complainant by the opposite parties that complainant had never used power to such a big amount and that complainant is not at all liable to pay any amount as claimed by opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to withdraw the adjustment invoice and demand and disconnection notice and pay compensation to the complainant.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant had been paying current charges regularly as per PIC, that the complainant had remitted current charge till 3/00 as per the said PIC, that the last reading during the above period was 7031 which was taken in 12/93, the next reading was taken in 4/00 and it was 6339 and that the 4 digit meter had already completed one revolution upto 10000 and started afresh from 1 to 6339, so the total consumption during the period between the said two readings was (10000-7031)+6339=9308 units. The invoice dated 23.04.2000 was prepared on the basis of the said total consumption. The amount already paid by the consumer had been credited. The amount of the bill is only the balance due from him. Complainant had not put up any complaint before the opposite parties about the said bill. Had he done this, he could have availed of the facility of paying the bill in 12 or 13 monthly instalments as stipulated in the rules in this regard. The petitioner was assessed for consumption recorded by the meter in his premises and the bill was prepared as per the existing tariff rules. The consumer is liable to pay the cost of energy consumed by him. Complainant is not eligible for any compensation.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the adjustment invoice dated 23.04.2000 and the demand and disconnection notice dated 02.06.2000 cancelled?

2. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Other reliefs.

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite parties did not file affidavit or documents.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 8422 under Electrical Major section, Kattakkada. It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant is very punctual in paying the electricity bill and the same was doing regularly without default, that an adjustment invoice dated 23.04.2000 for Rs. 18,556/- and a demand and disconnection notice were issued to the complainant by opposite parties and that complainant had never used power worth to such a big amount and that complainant is not at all liable to pay any amount. It has been rebutted by the opposite parties by submitting that the complainant had been paying current charge regularly as per PIC issued to him at the rate of Rs. 322/- per month. On the basis of average monthly consumption in the past (60 units) and that complainant had remitted current charge till 03/00 as per the said PIC. Submission urged by the opposite party is that the meter reading was 7031 in 12/93, the next reading was taken in 04/00 and it was 6339. It has been contended by the opposite parties that the 4 digit meter had already completed one revolution upto 10000 and started afresh from 1 to 6339, so the total consumption during the period between the said two readings was (10000-7031)+6339. That is 2969+6339=9308 units. The invoice dated 23.04.2000 was prepared on the basis of the said total consumption after adjusting the amount already paid by the consumer. Ext. P1 is the adjustment invoice dated 23.04.2000. As per Ext. P1 the tariff is under VII A, last reading is 6339 RC, previous reading is 7031, total consumption comes to 9307/76, and the amount claimed is Rs. 18,566/- units. The said Ext. P1 adjustment invoice is seen prepared for a period from 12/93 to 04/00. As per provision relating to he Regulation of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, opposite parties must take meter reading at regular interval. Ext. P5 is the provisional invoice card. As per Ext. P5, from 02/99 the average consumption per month is 60 units and the current charge per month Rs. 322 and the same has been remitted till 03/00. On a perusal of Ext. P5, it is found that opposite party will take meter reading once in six months and send adjustment bill on the basis of excess consumption of energy. In this case opposite party has never issued such adjustment bill prior to 23.04.2000. It has been contended by the opposite parties that after the meter reading in 12/93, the next meter reading was taken in 04/00. That is the next meter reading was taken after 6 years and 4 months. Opposite parties did not act as per provisions of Regulation. Hence the preparation of adjustment bill after 6 years is highly belated. Further opposite parties did not furnish any documents to substantiate the pleadings in the version, nor did opposite parties file affidavit in rebuttal. There is no allegation in the complaint regarding functioning of the meter or status of the meter. Delayed meter reading and issuance of delayed adjustment bill in a single stretch would definitely saddle the complainant. Meter reading and adjustment bill was prepared against the provision relating to Regulation of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy to the extent of which there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is pertinent to note that Ext. P5 PIC was seen issued to the complainant on 16.04.1999 on the basis of 60 units under tariff VII A, but real consumption can be ascertained only after proper meter reading. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the last meter reading was taken in 04/00. Since there is no allegation regarding the working of the meter in the complaint we do not cast doubt over the meter reading as stated in the version. It is further to be pointed out that since opposite party had raised provisional bills regularly, opposite party is fully entitled to raise regular bills(adjustment bills) which has to be seen as continuation of provisional bills. Though opposite parties had raised adjustment bill belatedly, time limitation cannot be applicable in raising supplementary demand. But delay in meter reading and raising of adjustment bill in a single stretch would definitely suffocate the consumer, for such deficiency on the part of opposite parties, we award a compensation of Rs. 5000/-. Ext. P4 is the bill dated 02.06.2000. As per Ext. P4 consumption is 2136 units, previous meter reading is 6339, which is mentioned as the last reading in Ext. P1 also. Within one month from the last reading in 04/00 the reading is seen risen to 8475, the name of the spot biller and his signature is not seen in Ext. P4 and arrear amount if any not mentioned in the said bill. Opposite parties filed version on 20^th September 2001, nowhere in the version is it mentioned by the opposite party about the meter reading on 02.06.2000 as stated in Ext. P4. Moreover opposite parties themselves are seen cast doubt over the validity of the bill dated 02.06.2000 by giving green ink mark. Further following the pattern of consumption from 12/93 to 04/00 as stated in Ext. P1, it is appeared that the reading stated in Ext. P4 is somewhat abnormal. Without the signature of the authority concerned the Ext. P4 bill is seen issued to the complainant. Ext. P2 is the copy of advocate notice addressed to opposite parties, Ext. P3 is the acknowledgement card. Ext. P4 is the original receipt dated 27.04.2000 and 28.04.2000. In the light of evidence adduced we find abnormality in Ext. P4 bill dated 02.06.2000 and hence it deserves to be quashed, while Ext. P1 adjustment invoice though issued belatedly, appears to be genuine. Hence we find complainant is liable to pay the amount as per Ext. P1 adjustment invoice dated 23.04.2000.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bill dated 02.06.2000 (Ext. P4) issued by the opposite parties is hereby cancelled. Complainant shall pay the amount as per adjustment invoice dated 23.04.2000 (Ext. P1) after deduction of compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and costs of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in six monthly instalments.

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 16^th March 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 523/2000

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Adjustment invoice No. 08519 dated 23.04.2000 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

P2 - Copy of advocate notice issued to opposite parties.

P3 - Acknowledgement card.

P4 - Demand and disconnection notice with bill No. 91271 dated 02.06.2000.

P5 - Provisional Invoice Card of Con. No.8422.

P6 - Receipt – original dated 27.04.2000.

P6(a) - Receipt – original dated 28.04.2000.

III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT