O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member. The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant is a house wife and she is a domestic consumer of Electrical section, Ayarkunnam with consumer No. 10950 – 2 A 16. The complainant had duly paid the electricity bills regularly issued without any delay and there is no due till date. The opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 4,329/- as back assessment alleging that the consumer was under charged. The said bill was issued without any basis, only on assumption that the consumer is under charged. There is no legal or factual basis for issuing such a bill. The complainant alleged that the act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service from their part and had caused mental agony and monetory loss to him. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to cancel the bill for Rs. 4,329/- -2- not to disconnect the electricity, to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and to pay the litigation cost. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions. i) The energy meter of the complainant was faulty from 1/07 to 6/08. Due to acute shortage of the energy meter the same was replaced only on 29..6..2008. During the meter faulty period bills were issued based on the average consumption of 5/2006, 7/2006 and 9/2006 ie. 97 units without considering the period during which meter was sluggish. The meter was declared faulty on 1/2007. The average consumption considered for the period 5/2006 to 9/2006 was wrong due to sluggish reading and revised the bill after replacing the faulty meter based on the actual average consumption after changing the faulty meter. ii) The back assessment bill for an amount of Rs. 4329/- was issued as per regulation 42(3) and 33(2) of the terms and conditions of supply 2005 and the bill issued is legal and proper. Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them. Points for consideration are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? -3- ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and exhibits A1 and B1 series. Point No. 1 Heard both sides and perused the documents on record. The opposite parties contented that the meter became sluggish from 19..01..2006 and became faulty on 16..01..2007. From the aforesaid contention itself it is evident that the meter was error free prior to 19..01..2006. As per S-33(2) of the KSEB Terms and conditions of supply 2005, “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.” Bill based on succeeding consumption is only allowed in condition where the average consumption for the previous months cannot be taken. In this instant case the opposite parties could have very well taken the previous six months average consumption as directed in S-33 (2) of the terms and conditions of supply 2005. And as stated in the aforesaid section, the opposite parties issued bills based on the previous average consumption. But later the opposite parties felt that the average taken by them was not correct and therefore issued a back assessment -4- bill based on the meter reading in the succeeding three months after the replacement of the meter. In this case the opposite parties billed the meter faulty period based on the previous average. So, it is not fair to issue back assessment bill for the already billed period according to their whims and fancies. Further more as per S-33(2) of the Terms and conditions of supply, the meter is to be replaced within one month. But the opposite parties replaced the meter only on 29..6..2008. That means the meter change was done after a long period of 1 ½ years. So, we hold the opposite parties deficient in service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1 , the complaint is allowed. The complaint is ordered as follows: The bill of Rs. 4329/- dtd: 01..02..2010 is cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation ordered. Both sides will bear their costs. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the complainant: Ext. A1: Original bill Dtd: 1..2..2010 Ext. A2: Original receipt dt: 27..6..2008 Documents of the opposite parties Ext. B1: Copy of meter reading register. Ext. B1(a) Copy of meter reading register Ext. B1(b) Copy of meter reading register.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
