<br /> <br /> <br /> By R.VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The Complaint is filed for quashing the bill dated 16/7/05 and directing Opposite parties to issue fresh bill taking average consumption of previous period, installation of defect less meter and compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> The avernments in the Complaint can be briefly summarized as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a Consumer of opposite parties. Since the defacto Consumer is living abroad he is authorized to conduct the case. Complainant is having 3-phase connection with Consumer No: 11201 and the consumption were below minimum. She was used to pay Rs.405/- as bill amount. Alleging that the mechanical meter was faulty the opposite parties dismantled the mechanical meter and installed an Electronic meter on 21/5/05 with out any notice.<br /> <br /> The opposite parties served a bill dated 16/7/05 for an amount of Rs.13,983/-. The meter reading shown in the bill was 2646 and informed that if defaulted in payment the supply will be disconnected. The consumption of Electricity was minimum and meter reading was high due to the fault in the electronic meter newly installed. It was complainted to the Asst. Engineer but no enquiry was made by the Opposite parties. Consumer is not liable to pay the amount and she has every right to get the extra ordinary bill cancelled. The act of opposite parties caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opposite parties filed version contenting inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed. The complainant is not a registered consumer. As it was noted that the consumption for the month of 16/5/05 is only 21 units the mechanical meter was chequed up and found faulty. An Electronic meter was installed. Initial reading of the newly installed Electrical meter was 5 units. On 16/7/05 the reading was found 2646 units, and the bill was issued for the consumption of 2641 units. On 19/7/05 complainant lodged a complaint and the officers concerned inspected the premises. After tests they found that meter reading was so high because of the earth leakage on wiring circuit of consumer and the said matter was intimated to the consumer. On 21/7/05 the officer concerned again inspected the premises found the same defect and prepared a site Mahassor. Consumer has not installed ELCB to prevent earth leakage. Regarding the future meter-reading complainant has no complaint. The consumption recorded is genuine and bill was issued as per provision. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence they prays for dismissal of complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service, <br /> 2. Relief’s and cost<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The Complainant was examined as PW1. Exhibits P1 to P4 marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> The II opposite party was examined as DW1. Exhibits D1 to D7 marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points I and II<br /> <br /> Admittedly the Mechanical meter was changed and Electronic meter was installed by opposite parties. There is no dispute about the consumption or bill amounts of prior or future periods. The consumption is minimum. The learned counsel for complainant argued that the opposite parties dismantled the mechanical meter without any notice or intimation and without observing formalities. The learned Counsel for opposite parties argued that the mechanical meter was replaced, as it was faulty one. The learned Counsel for complainant argued that if there was a fault in the meter the opposite parties should sent it for testing. No test was conducted by the competent technician. No steps were taken by the opposite parties to review the loss arised due to the leakage. The opposite parties are not issued back assessment bill.<br /> <br /> In the Cross Examination DW1 deposed that “Sealing Register Meter is a changing Register “. The Learned Counsel for complainant argued that as per Regulation 21 of K.S.E.B Terms and Conditions of supply 2005 stated that Sealing Register is to be maintained by the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> The learned Counsel for opposite parties argued that the initial meter reading of electronic meter newly installed was 5 units. The learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that the initial reading of rectified meter would be high. In cross-examination DW1 deposed. <br /> <br /> The opposite parties have not submitted any document to prove that they have observed formalities for dismantling the mechanical meter and installing the electronic meter. If it is true that the exorbitant bill was due to the leakage and leakage is due to fault either in wiring or on electronic equipments they should have issued back assessment bill. Opposite parties in their version para 3 <br /> <br /> This paragraph is clearly stating that the newly erected meter was not faulty. But it was not clearly stating from where the leakage is happened. For this question only a presumption is the answer. Even though leakage of electricity is dangerous and it is a national waste, Electricity board officials had taken no steps. No notice was served directing the Complainant to rectify the fault. 22 of Regulations relating to conditions of supply of Electrical energy 1990 states that ‘The Board also reserved the right to disconnect, the supply until defects are rectified giving simulations intimation to the consumer and Electrical inspector”. If the opposite parties were firm in their version that the mechanical meter was faulty, why the back assessment bills were not issued as per rules?<br /> <br /> The electronic meter was installed arbitrarily and without any notice to the complaint. No material to prove that the initial reading of newly installed meter was 5 units. It was not convinced to the complainant.<br /> <br /> For all that has been discussed above we are of the view that the opposite parties could not establish that the exorbitant bill was due to the over consumption or earth leakage. <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed. The bill dated 16/7/05 is quashed.<br /> <br /> The opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh bill taking the average consumption of 12 months previous and future of the allegated bill period. The opposite parties are also directed to pay <br /> Rs.1,000/- as compensation and cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of this order. <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 28th July, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> INDEX<br /> <br /> List of Witness for the complaint<br /> PW1 K.P. George Kutty<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complaint.<br /> Ext P1 : Disputed bill dated 16.7.05<br /> Ext P2 : Prior bills (No.6)<br /> Ext P3 : Prior Receipts (No. 5)<br /> Ext P4 : Complaint dated 18.7.05<br /> <br /> List of Witness for the opposite party.<br /> DW1 Abdul Latheef<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complaint. <br /> Ext D1 : Consumer Personal Deposit Register extract<br /> Ext D2 : Meter Reading Register’s extract 915.7.04 – 16.5.05)<br /> Ext D3 : Disputed Bill<br /> Ext D4 : Inspection report dt. 19.7.05<br /> Ext. D5 : Site Mahazer<br /> Ext. D6 : Meter Reading Register’s extract (9.05 ---------11/11/05)<br /> Ext. D7 : Meter changing Register’s extract<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />