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. 552/1999 Filed on 15.11.1999

Dated : 31.08.2009

Complainant:

Sherkhan. H, Reliance, Near Mahadeva Theatre, Ettiruthi, Kattakkada.

(By adv. Kulathoor S.V. Premakumaran Nair)

Opposite parties:

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

    

2. The Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B, Nedumangadu.

    

3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, 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 27.10.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.07.2009, the Forum on 31.08.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 21731, that the connection was under domestic category, that due to various reasons complainant was not in a position to reside in his house permanently, that the meter is working not properly since it is defective, that the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, but opposite parties did not inspect the said meter and that the complainant was in the habit of remitting electricity charge in advance for one year at the rate fixed by the opposite parties. It is stated in the complaint that complainant shifted his residence to Parippally on 06.07.1998 for six months and the building remained closed without consumption of even a single unit of electrical energy, that for that period also current charge was paid as per the tariff fixed by the opposite parties and that on 05.01.1999 the said building was rented to Neyyattinkara Rubber Marketing Society and the same was informed to opposite parties. Subsequently in April 1999 opposite parties inspected the premises and new meter was fixed on 29.07.1999. On 22.04.1999 opposite parties issued a bill for an amount of Rs. 6,120/- which was also paid by the rentee. On 26.07.1999 opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 20,507/- that in the said bill opposite parties have recorded that from 09/96 onwards till 07/99 complainant had used 9919 units of electrical energy. Against this illegal demand complainant filed a complaint before the opposite parties and it was placed in an adalat. Thereafter another bill dated 28.10.1999 was issued by opposite parties demanding to remit an amount of Rs. 17,591/- on or before 18.11.1999 or else opposite party will disconnect the supply. In the said bill also the calculation is from 09/96 to 10/99. The above said bills are contradictory. Hence this complaint to declare that complainant is not liable to pay any amount as per the bill dated 28.10.1999 and to restrain opposite parties from disconnecting the supply for non-remitting any amount as per the said bill and to pay costs.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that consumer has been given a provisional invoice card for 100 units per month for payment of current charges and accordingly complainant had remitted current charge at the rate of Rs. 77/- per month upto 01/97, at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month from 02/97 to 05/99 and at the rate of Rs. 108/- per month upto 07/99 provisionally. The meter reading was taken in 03/99 and it was 9919 units, that the meter was working properly upto 03/99. On 22.07.1999 the meter reading was 9920 and the meter was found faulty and it was also found that consumer was using energy for commercial purpose. Accordingly, an additional bill amounting to Rs. 20,507/- was prepared and issued to the consumer for the period from 09/96 to 07/99 for actual consumption of 9919 units upto 03/99 under domestic tariff and thereafter from 04/99to 07/99 under commercial tariff on average consumption of 320 units prior to 03/99. No information was received from the consumer about the fault of the meter till 08/99. Complainant lodged a complaint in the Adalat stating that the meter was faulty from the beginning itself and to exempt him from paying the additional bill. In the said Adalat it was stated that the said building was rented out to Neyyattinkara Marketing Co-operative Society on 05.01.1999. The faulty meter was changed on 22.07.1999 in pursuance of an inspection conducted by the opposite parties. In the Adalat it has been revealed that the petitioner rented out the building to run a marketing society on 05.01.1999 itself. In consideration of which the excess bill was revised for Rs. 17,591/-. The opposite parties have not committed any negligence as alleged in the complaint and the bill was prepared in accordance with the prevailing rules in this regard. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the bill dated 28.10.1999?

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

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation? If so, at what amount?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P10 were marked. In rebuttal, 3^rd opposite party has filed counter affidavit and Exts. D1 to D3 were marked.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 21731 of KSEB Major Section, Kattakkada. It has not been in dispute that the said connection was under domestic category and the complainant had remitted current charge as per provisional invoice card upto 7/99. It has been the case of the complainant that he was in the habit of remitting the electricity charge in advance for one year without inspecting actual reading, that the consumption of energy was less since he was not in a position to reside in the house permanently, that the meter was found working improperly which were informed to the authorities concerned who told him that on being reported by the meter reader the same would be replaced by the opposite party. It has also been the case of the complainant that he shifted his residence to Paripally due to his father's illness and the building remained closed without consumption of even single unit of electricity, but for that period also he had remitted the electrical charge as per provisional invoice card. Submission by the complainant is that the said building was rented to Neyyattinkara Rubber Marketing Society and the same was also informed to opposite parties, that a bill dated 22.02.1999 for Rs. 6,120/- issued by the opposite party was paid by the rentee on behalf of him since the rentee was in the occupation of the same, that thereafter opposite party issued a bill dated 26.07.1999 for Rs. 20,507/-, which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 17,591/- by opposite party by another bill dated 28.10.1999 and that the two bills were contradictory. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill dated 28.10.1999 for Rs. 17,591/-. As per Ext. P1 last meter reading as on 03/99 is 9919, while the prior reading on 09/96 is '0'. This would imply that no meter reading was taken between 09/96 and 03/99. As per Ext. P1, tariff is under IA and VII A with effect from 01/99. Ext. P2 is the copy of the bill dated 26.07.1999 wherein the tariff is under VII A. Ext. P3 is the copy of the provisional invoice card. As per Ext. P3, average monthly consumption is 100 units, monthly payment is Rs. 108/-. On the top of the Ext. P1 it is seen recorded 'changed to VII A with effect from 08/99'. On a perusal of Ext. P3, it is seen written that “collected cc from 06/97 to 05/98 on 24.05.1997 and advance cc from 07/98 to 06/99 on 27.06.1998. Ext. P4 is the copy of the provisional invoice card with effect from 11/99, wherein the tariff not mentioned, while average consumption recorded is 215 units and monthly amount is Rs. 1513/-. Ext. P5 is the copy of the invoice card, wherein the tariff is VII A and F.C is Rs. 200/- and energy charge is Rs. 1,920/- and electricity duty is Rs. 192/-, the total comes to Rs. 2,312/-. Ext. P6 is the copy of rent deed dated 28.01.1999. Ext. P7 is the copy of the letter given by the opposite party to the complainant informing him of the revision of the excess bill dated 26.07.1999. Ext. P8 is the copy of the letter dated 05.12.1996 addressed to 3^rd opposite party informing him of the improper functioning of the meter. Ext. P9 is the copy of the letter dated 09.07.1997 addressed to the 3^rd opposite party informing him to replace the faulty meter with a good one. Ext. P10 is the copy of the letter addressed to 3^rd opposite party informing him about the building having power connection in consumer No. 21731 rented the Neyyattinkara Rubber Marketing Society. Submission urged by the opposite party is that there was no fault in the meter between 09/96 and 03/99, that complainant had used 9919 units during the said period and bills were issued as per reading, that complainant never informed the opposite party's office about the building which was rented out to the rentee. Ext. D1 is the photocopy of the meter reading register. As per Ext. D1 on 03/99, meter reading recorded is 9919, on 22.07.99 the meter reading was 9920, meter changed on 29.07.1999. After installation of the new meter, meter reading as on 14.09.1999 was 405 units and on 25.10.1999 reading was 640 units. Ext. D2 is the copy of the calculation statement for extra bill for the period from 09/96 to 07/99. Ext. D3 is the copy of the revised invoice. It is pertinent to note that evidently there is no meter reading prior to 03/99. Reading on 03/99 was 9919 units and on 09/99, 9920 units. From the pattern of meter reading itself, it is crystal clear that the meter was faulty prior to the replacement of the same with a new meter on 29.07.1999. As per Exts. P8 to P10, complainant had already informed the 3^rd opposite party of the improper functioning of the said meter. No action was seen taken by the opposite parties in this regard. As per evidence available on records, Ext. P2 and P1 additional bills/Exts. D2 and D3 are seen prepared on the basis of faulty meter reading. At this juncture, it is to be highlighted that there are clear cut provisions under Electricity Act about the replacement of a faulty meter. Nowhere in the version is it stated that the old meter got tested by the Chief Electrical Inspector as per the provisions of the Electricity Act. It has been laid down in Sec. 26(6) of the Electricity Act that the correctness of the meter can be certified by the Electrical Inspector on application by either party, the aforesaid Act mandates that in the event of the meter being defective and giving incorrect reading the Electrical Inspector shall estimate the energy supplied to the consumer during the disputed period and even if meter is found to be incorrect or defective the consumer cannot be charged beyond 6 months of the disputed period. Whether the meter is running slow or fast it will be possible for Electrical Inspector to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer by determining the extent of percentage of error in recording the supply whether plus or minus. Opposite parties have no authority to declare the meter defective on its own and replace it by a new meter, such authority can be exercised only by the Chief Electrical Inspector. In this case the issue is associated with the already removed meter, meter removed long back, hence not possible to refer to Chief Electrical Inspector. Even if the said meter is readily available with opposite party, there is no guarantee that whether the said meter is in the same condition as it was on the date of removal. In his affidavit complainant has stated that he shifted his residence to Paripally due to his father's illness, that his building remained closed for 6 months, and that even after informing the 3^rd opposite party about the improper functioning of the meter, 3^rd opposite party had not responded positively. As per Ext. P6 on 28.01.1999 the said building was rented out to Rubber Marketing Society. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite parties. Thereby the affidavit filed by the complainant remains unchallenged. Opposite party in his affidavit has stated that the meter was not faulty during the period between 09/96 and 03/99. As per Ext. D1 meter reading is seen taken only on 03/99. There is no material to show that meter reading was taken by the opposite party prior to 03/99. Submission by the complainant is that meter reader never came to the premises to take reading on the meter. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold the statement of opposite parties that meter was not faulty between 09/96 and 03/99 is devoid of bonafides. The bills prepared by opposite parties are without any basis which are liable to be cancelled. Taking into consideration of totality of circumstance we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met, if complainant is directed to remit water charge on the basis of provisional invoice card upto 28.01.1999. Since the said building was rented out to Rubber Marketing Society and average meter reading after the installation of new meter was 212/month complainant is liable to remit current charge on the basis of 212 units per month from 02/99 to 10/99.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Complainant is not liable to remit current charge as per bill dated 28.10.1999. Complainant is liable to remit current charge on the basis of provisional invoice card upto 01/99, thereafter on the basis of 212 units per month upto 10/99. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.

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 31^st day of August 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 552/1999

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of Adjustment Invoice dated 28.10.1999.

P2 - Photocopy of Adjustment Invoice dated 26.07.1999.

P3 - Photocopy of Provisional Invoice Card dated 18.02.1999.

P4 - Photocopy of Provisional Invoice Card dated 28.10.1999.

P5 - Photocopy of Provisional Invoice Card dated 26.07.1999.

P6 - Photocopy of rent receipt deed dated 28.01.1999.

P7 - Photocopy of letter No. BB3/99-00 to the complainant.

P8 - Copy of reply letter dated 05.12.1996 to the opposite party.

P9 - Copy of reply letter dated 09.07.1997 to the opposite party.

P10 - Copy of reply letter dated 10.01.1999 to the opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Attested copy of pages of Meter Reading Register from 03/99 to 10/99.

D2 - Statement of Additional Bill for the period from 09/1996 to 07/1999.

D3 - Attested copy of additional bill adjustment for the period from 09/96 to 10/99.

PRESIDENT