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. 364/2004 Filed on 22.09.2004 Dated : 15.11.2008 Complainant:
Yoosuf Musaliar, S/o Noohu Pillai, residing at Rafeek Manzil, Madanvila, Perumathura, Thiruvananthapuram. (By adv. S. Krishna Kumar) Opposite parties:
Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Puthukkurichi, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kaniyapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair) 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 22.02.2007, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15.10.2008, the Forum on 15.11.2008 delivered the following: ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties with Consumer No. 1279, Electrical Section, Puthukkurichi. Complainant is a domestic consumer He never defaulted any electrical consumption charges so far. Complainant is living with his aged wife and they have only very essential electrical appliances for their use. Opposite parties installed an electronic meter in spite of the protest by the complainant on 05.05.2003. After the installation of electronic meter the bills issued by the 2nd opposite party was highly exorbitant. The first month, it was Rs. 1161/-, the second month it was Rs. 1471/-, the third month it was Rs. 2304/-, the 4th month it was Rs. 3341/- and when the last bill was issued the amount levied was more than 4 times before the installation of the electronic meter. For a period of two months, complainant was away at his brother's house along with his wife and for the said two months no electrical energy was utilized by the complainant. But when the bill was issued it was seen that complainant had to pay more than Rs. 1000/- during the said months. Before the installation of the electronic meter the charge was always Rs. 750/-. Complainant paid all the bills for the fear of disconnection and also under protest. The impugned bills after the installation of the electronic meter are to be declared illegal and complainant is entitled to get it reimbursed. Complainant sent registered letters regarding the same to the opposite parties. But he has not received any favourable response. The illegal acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to declare the bills issued by 2nd opposite party after the installation of electronic meter as illegal, to reimburse the excess bill collected from the complainant and to instal properly working meter in the place of one which has been already installed and to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Complainant is a consumer of opposite parties with Consumer No. 1279 PKY (Now renumbered as 12173) and it is a three phase domestic connection. As the installed energy meter at the premises of the consumer was sluggish in operation it was suspected as faulty and replaced it with another static meter on 03.05.2003. When the new meter started to function properly, the complainant filed petition against installation of static meter. 2nd opposite party inspected his premises. But no abnormality was noticed in the functioning of the meter. But as the complainant constantly pressed to replace the meter the same was once again replaced on 23.09.2004 in order to redress his complaint. Consumption pattern before and after the above replacement of meter showed that the meters were in tact. The readings are furnished below: Month Bimonthly reading Bimonthly units 03.05.2003 IR-0 Meter changed 06/2003 415 415 08/2003 1065 650 10/2003 1704 639 12/2003 2419 715 02/2004 2852 433 04/2004 3334 482 06/2004 4165 831 08/2004 4736 571 23.09.2004 I.R-12 Meter changed 10/2004 238 588 12/2004 861 623 As the meter was properly working, the energy charge demanded based on the bimonthly reading was correct and as per rules. The previous readings shows that the old meter installed at the premises of the complainant started to decline in recording consumption from 02/2002 onwards. So complainant has to be reassessed for the meter faulty period on the present consumption as per rules. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bills declared illegal? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bills reimbursed? Reliefs and costs.
To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and marked Exts. P1 and P2. To support the contention in the version, 3rd opposite party has filed proof affidavit.
Points (i) to (iv):- Admittedly complainant is a consumer of electrical Section, Puthukkurichi and consumer No. 1279. It is submitted by the opposite parties that it is a 3 phase connection. It has been the case of the complainant that on 05.05.2003 opposite parties installed an electronic meter inspite of the protest of the complainant and that bills issued after the installation of electronic meter was highly exorbitant and that before the installation of electronic meter the charge was always around Rs. 750/- and that the bills after the installation of electronic meter are to be declared illegal and the complainant is to be entitled to get it reimbursed. It has been resisted by opposite parties by submitting that complainant has never raised any dispute that the new meter installed is faulty and readings recorded are incorrect and that if the meter is faulty and there on excessive bills are prepared the complainant has to approach the Electrical Inspector under Sec. 26(6) of the Electricity Act and that complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Opposite parties further submitted that raising of bills based on readings recorded by the meter will not amount to deficiency in service. Opposite party submits that as the installed energy meter at the premises of the consumer was sluggish in operation it was expected as faulty and replaced it with static meter on 03.05.2003 and when the complainant filed petition against installation the 2nd opposite party inspected his premises, but no abnormality was noticed in the functioning of the meter and the same was appraised to the complainant. Complainant submits that not alone the complainant, but the public in large are dissatisfied with the installation of electronic meter. But it is pertinent to note that nowhere in the complaint is it mentioned that the electronic meter is faulty and readings recorded are incorrect. It is settled law that Electricity Board has power to replace the faulty meter by a new meter. Sec. 26 of the Electricity Act requires to maintain the correct meter. The Board is also bound to replace the meter. The case of the opposite party is that the earlier meter installed at the premises of the complainant was sluggish in operation and it was expected to be in faulty. But it is pertinent to note that there are clear cut provisions under Electricity Act about the replacement of a faulty meter. Opposite party did not produce any document to show whether the opposite parties have observed the required rules and regulations for replacing the 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. Before ascertaining the accuracy of the old meter, opposite party removed the said meter and replaced it with an electronic meter. A perusal of Ext. P1 bills show that there has been discrepancy in the meter reading in the old meter and replaced the meter. Moreover it is admitted by the opposite party that as the complainant protested to replace the electronic meter the same was once again replaced on 23.09.2004. Complainant has challenged the bills issued by opposite parties after the installation of electronic meter. Complainant has submitted that he is living with his aged wife and his children are working abroad. In his cross examination complainant has deposed that his building having 3-phase connection consists of 7 rooms and each of which has fan and light, and has very essential electrical appliances for his use. The specific case of the opposite party is that the old meter was sluggish in operation which is seen denied by the complainant in his cross-examination. 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 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 the 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. Since in the present case the allegation is about the exorbitant bills after the installation of electronic meter, it is associated with the working of the existing meter and already replaced meter. A dispute of this kind can be referred to an Electrical Inspector. The opposite party has not proved on the record that the old meter was sluggish and defective and that the authority has not got the old meter tested before the installation of electronic meter. 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 meter removed long back, hence not possible to refer to Chief Electrical Inspector. Complainant has no case that the meter is faulty and reading recorded are incorrect. Further it is to be noted that no bills were raised by opposite parties for the period for which the meter was moving sluggishly and that
the bills were raised as per reading on the newly installed meter. As such we cannot declare the bills issued by the opposite parties as illegal. Hence we find the complainant is not entitled to get the bills reimbursed. Admittedly the board has alleged that the old meter was not functioning properly and in such a situation a reference to the Chief Electrical Inspector should have been the appropriate step. Resorting to such a step at this stage is very difficult since the meter was removed by the Board long back and 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. Therefore though reference to the Chief Electrical Inspector would have been the proper step in this case that cannot be done now and for that Board itself is responsible to the extent of which there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for which we award a compensation of Rs. 5000/-.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) towards costs and the same shall be adjusted in future bills to be issued to the complainant. 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 15th November 2008. G. SIVAPRASAD, President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 364/2004 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - N.M. Yoosuf Musaliar II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Photocopy of Bills issued by the opposite parties.
P2 - Photocopy of letter issued to the Asst. Engineer by the complainant.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Photocopy of statement showing meter reading.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
