CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
K.N Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 291/2009.
Tuesday, the 25th day of January, 2011
Petitioner : Saidhalumma Abdul Khader,
Puthenpurackal,
Thazathangadi P.O.,
Kottayam
(By Adv. Lini Thomas. K. )
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Trivandrum
reptd. by its Secretary.
2) The Exe. Engineer,
KSEB, Pallom Division,
Kottayam.
3) The Asst. Engineer,
KSEB Kottayam .
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath.P, President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 1..10..2009, is as follows:
Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party with vide consumer No. 9781. According to the petitioner by monthly bill of the petitioner will come to Rs. 200/-. From 2005 to 2007 petitioner was abroad and during the said period house of the petitioner was closed. When the petitioner returned home it is seen that meter of the petitioner was faulty. On the year 2007 the faulty meter was replaced with a fault free meter. Petitioner is remitting the entire bill issued by the opposite party and is never a defaulter of the opposite party. On 15..12..2008 opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 7113/-. According to the petitioner issuance of the additional bill to the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. So, petitioner prays for
-2-
cancellation of the bill for an amount of Rs. 7,113/- petitioner claims costs and compensation.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party since the secretary is not made a party to the proceedings petition is mis jointer of necessary parties. Registered consumer with vide consumer No. 9781 is one Leelamma Abraam, Pullampilavu House, Thazhathangadi. According to the opposite party, in addition to the disputed bill, petitioner is a defaulter of the normal bills from 3/09 to 12/09. The meter of the consumer was faulty on 12/03 to 4/07. On 26..4..2007 the faulty meter was replaced with a fault free meter. By monthly average consumption before the meter was faulty is 214 units and after replacement of the faulty meter the average consumption is 223 units. During faulty period the bill for an average 60 units was issued to the petitioner. During the inspection of the audit team it is seen that the petitioner is not assessed properly. Accordingly as per recommendation of the audit team short assessment bill for Rs. 7113/- was issued to the petitioner . On 1..2..2009 petitioner had given a complaint to the second opposite party stating that premises of the petitioner was given for rent and during the leased period consumption was exceeded. So she may be exempted from paying the disputed bill. According to the opposite party disputed bill is issued as per law and there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
-3-
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is petition is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
iii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B5 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
Opposite parties were taken a contention that since the petitioner is not a registered consumer and the registered consumer of consumer No. 1791 is Leelamma Abraham, Pullampilavil House, Thazathangadi this petition is not maintainable. In our view as per section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act if a person who hires or avails in service for consideration and ay beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the service for consideration is a consumer. So, the petition is maintainable.
Point No. 2
Petitioner produce the disputed bill said document is marked as Ext. A2. From Ext. A2 it can be seen that the bill is issued as a short assessment bill for 12/03 to 4/07. According to the opposite party disputed bill is issued after taking the average consumption after replacement of the faulty meter with a fault free meter. Opposite party produced the meter reading register from 25..10..2003 to 27..6..2006 said document is marked as Ext. B3. The copy of the meter reading register from 28..8..2006 to 25..4..2009 is produced the said document is marked as Ext. B4. From
-4-
Ext. B3 and B4 document it can be seen that average consumption of the petitioner before the meter become faulty is 204 units. Further more from Ext. B3 and B4 it can be seen that after the installation of the new meter on 26..4..2004 by monthly consumption of the petitioner is 223 units. As per regulation 33 (2) of the conditions of supply 2005 if the board is unable to raise a bill on meter reading due to non recording or mal functioning 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 records the consumption or any other reason consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding 3 months after replacement of the meter . In our view since the board is able to raise a bill based on the previous six months average consumption issuance of the bill in contra to the provisions of Regulation 33(2) is a clear deficiency in service. Further more non replacement of the faulty meter with a fault free meter within one month from the date of detection of the fault with the meter amounts to deficiency in service. So point No. 2 is found accordingly.
Point No. 3
In view of the finding in point No. 1 and 2. Petition is allowed in part. In the result, the following order is passed:
(a) Bill Dtd: 15..1..2009 for an amount of Rs. 7113 is cancelled. (b) Opposite party is directed to issue fresh bill as per clause 33 (2) of conditions of supply of electrical energy by taking the previous six months average consumption before the meter became faulty . (c) Opposite party is directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for not replacing the faulty meter as per
-5-
regulation 33 (2) (d) of condition of supply 2005. While issuing fresh bill opposite party is directed to adjust compensation amount in the revised bill. (e) Petitioner can remit the revised bill amount in 5 equal monthly installment along with future by monthly bills. Opposite party is directed not to collect any interest or penal amount for the bill amount.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this 25th day of January,2011
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 15..1..2009
Ext. A2 series Bills
Ext. A3: Copy of the passport of the petitioner.
Documents for the opposite party
Ext. B1: Copy of the C.D register
Ext. B2: Copy of consumer personal ledger
Ext. B3: Copy of meter reading register on 25..10..2003 to 26..6..2006
Ext. B4: Copy of meter reading from 28..8..2006 to 25..4..2009
Ext. B5: Copy of complaint Dtd: 1..2..2009.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
