VP Natarajan filed a consumer case on 24 May 2008 against Secretary,KSEB in the Wayanad Consumer Court. The case no is 40/2006 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Kerala
Wayanad
40/2006
VP Natarajan - Complainant(s)
Versus
Secretary,KSEB - Opp.Party(s)
24 May 2008
ORDER
CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North consumer case(CC) No. 40/2006
VP Natarajan
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Asst.Exe.Engineer Secretary,KSEB
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. P Raveendran 3. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member The case of the complainant is that he is residing in House No. B-7 Indira Nagar Housing Colony as a tenant of Dr. Jithendranath who is the owner of the property as per the rent agreement executed between the complainant and Dr. Jithendranath. As per the rent agreement the complainant is liable to pay the electricity charge of the house. Electricity connection in consumer No.6241 under Sulthan Bathery Electrical Major Section. So the complainant has been paying the electricity charge properly. While so the complainant noticed the improper functioning of the electronic meter and requested to replace the electronic meter. As per the request of the complainant the second opposite party replaced an electronic meter bearing 2. No.1229982. Prior to the replacement, average consumption of electricity was 50-58 units and subsequent to the replacement of the electronic meter 1st bill was served on the complainant on 6.05.2003 for an amount of Rs.231.40 being the charge of electricity consumption of 100 units. Thereafter the units of electricity consumption showed in the electronic meter was 130, 200, 320, 787, and 2774 in the bills dated, 4.7.03, 6.11.03, 6.1.04, 6.3.04 and 5.5.04 respectively issued to the complainant. The meter reading recorded in electronic meter from June 2003 is erroneous and the complainant had never consumed electricity in such quantity as shown in the Electronic meter. So the complainant preferred a complaint before the Asst. Engineer, KSEB during June 2004. But the Asst. Engineer did not take any action. Thereafter the complainant again filed a complaint before second opposite party on 14.7.04 stating the defects. Copy of the same sent to Dy. Chief Engineer, Kalpetta. But no positive action was taken by the opposite parties. 2. Since the electronic meter records defective reading the complainant did not pay any of the bill issued from 6.11.03 onwards. So the electricity supply was disconnected in June 2004. Thereafter the complainant approached second opposite party to take action to rectify the defective meter on the basis of the complaint already filed by him. While so the Asst. Engineer KSEB issued a dismantling notice on 8.9.04 demanding payment of Rs.21,019/- . Immediately after the receipt of the notice the complainant again filed a complaint before the second opposite party. The 2nd opposite party deputed his staff to remove the defective meter to be sent for testing in T.M.R. Division, Shornnur. Thereafter installed a new electronic meter and restored the electricity supply. Subsequent to the installation of the new electrical meter the complainant has received a bill dated, 5.11.04 demanding payment of Rs.184/- in which the electricity consumption was 112 units. Thereafter second opposite party issued a demand notice on 10.12. 2004 demanding payment of Rs.23,038/- (Rupees twenty three thousand and thirty eight only) Contd........3) 3. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The complainant never consumed electricity in such quantity as shown in the electricity bills issued to the complainant from 11th November 2003 to 5th May 2004. The complainant had suffered untold miseries, hardships and mental agony due to indifferent and irresponsible act of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant prayed to pass an order to cancel the bills dated, 4.7.03, 6.11.03, 15.3.04, 6.1.04 and 5.5.04 that the electrical meter installed in the house of the complainant on 22.3.04 was faulty and defective and the consumption of energy recorded in the meter was excessive and in correct, to declare that that the dismantling notices are illegal, to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant, ordering the cost of the proceedings etc. 3 .The opposite party entered in to appearance and second opposite party filed version for him and on behalf of first opposite party. In the version, it is stated that the electric connection No.6241 under Electrical Section, Sulthan Bathery is registered in the name of the Secretary, Co-operative housing Society, Manichira under domestic tariff and the service connection was effected on 19-6-89. Since the meter installed at the premises was found faulty, it was replaced with an electronic meter on 22-3-03. He denied the averment in the complainant that the meter reading recorded in the electronic meter from June 2003 is defective etc. It is admitted that the complainant had submitted a complaint in 7/04 and on receipt of the complaint the A.E. Electrical section, S. Bathery had inspected the premises on 16.7.04 and reported that the meter is working properly. Accordingly, the complainant was advised to pay the entire arrears, but the consumer defaulted the payment, and the service connection was disconnected. Thereafter, dismantling notice was issued to the consumer. Again the AE inspected the premises on 16.7.04 and found that the meter is working properly. The complainant had filed a complaint during 7/04 about the working of the meter. Based on the complaint the AE inspected the premises and Contd......4 4 reported that the meter is working properly hence the complainant was advised to pay the entire arrears. But the complainant defaulted the payment and approached the Dy. Chief engineer, Electrical Circle, Kalpetta. As per the oral direction of the Dy. Chief Engineer this opposite party replaced the meter on 18.9.04 and sent the meter to the Meter Testing Unit, Shornur (TMR Division Shornur) for calibration. The supply was also restored on 18-9-04. But the Asst. Engineer TMR Division Shornur was reported that there was no pulse and meter could not be calibrated and hence the meter was declared faulty. It is highly suspicious that the complainant had done some mal-operation with the meter in order to make it faulty. It is also admitted that a dismantling notice was issued to the consumer No.6241 on 10-12-2004 demanding Rs.23038/-, since the consumer is liable to pay the amount as the meter was working properly up to 16.7.04. The consumer No.6241 is liable to pay the amount shown in the bills dated, 4-7-03, 6-11-03, 15-3-04 and 5-5-04. Since the bills were issued based on the consumption recorded in the good working meter, this opposite party is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence, the complainant may be dismissed with direction to the consumer to clear all the arrears payable to KSEB. 4. To prove complaints case the complainant was examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to Ext. A6 are the electric current charge bills dated, 6.5.03, 4.7.03, 6.11.03, 6.1.07, 6.3.04 and 5.5.04 respectively . Ext.A7 is a complaint filed by the complainant before opposite parties No.2 requesting him to take steps to issue fresh bills taking average-consumption consumed by the complainant before 11/03 because his meter was showing excess reading, Ext. A8 is Electricity bill dated, 5.11.04 after installing a new meter. Ext. A9 and A10 are the dismantling notice dated,8.9.04 and 10.12.04 respectively. Ext. A11 to Ex15 are the Electricity bills dated, 6.1.05, 3.3.05, 4.7.05,2.9.05 and 6.1.06. Contd......5) 5. 5 .The 2nd opposite party was examined as OP W1, marked Ext. B1 document. B1 document is a photo copy of calibration certificate of energy meter. 6.The points in consideration are: 1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 2) Relief and cost. 7. Point No.1: The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A15 were marked. All the exhibits, except Ext. A7, were issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, Ext. A7 is a copy of complaint filed by the complainant before 2nd opposite party. Ext. A1 is a Electric charge bill dated, 6.5.03. As per the above bill the complainant was consumed 135 units of energy. Ext. A2 is the Electric bill dated ,4.7.03 by which the complainant was consumed 130 units of energy. Ext. A3 is a bill dated, 6.11.03 by which he has consumed 200 units of energy. Ext. A4 is the bill dated 6.1.04 by which the consumption is 320 units of energy Ext. A5 is a bill dated, 6.3.04and the energy consumed is 787 units. Ext. A6 is the bill dated,5.5.04 and the energy consumed according to it is 2774 units. Ext. A7 is a copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant to 2nd opposite party requesting to rectify the defects in the bill from 6.11.03 to 5.5.04. Ext. A8 is the Electricity bill Dated, 5.11.04 by which the complainant has consumed 112 units. The above reading is after installation of new meter on 18-9-04. Ext.A9 and Ext. A10 are the dismantling notices issued by the opposite party to the consumer on 8.9.04 and 10.2.04 by which the opposite party directed to remit Rs.21,019/- and Rs.23,038/- respectively. Ext. A11 is a electricity bill dated 6.1.05 by which the consumption is 170 units. Ext.A12 is a bill dated, 3.3.05 shows that the consumer has consumed 178 units of energy. Ext. A13 is a bill dated 4.7.05 by which the consumption is 299 units. Ext. A14 is a bill dated, 2.9.05 by which he has consumed 254 units of energy. Ext. A 15 is also a bill dated, 6.1.06 by which the consumption is 257 units. 8. 2nd opposite party examined, as OP W1 and Ext.B1 was marked. Ext. B1 is a 6. copy of calibration certificate of Energy meters of Sl.No.129982. The test certificate was signed by Assistant Executive Engineer (Meter) T.M.R. Division, Shornur, and Assistant Engineer, Meter Section, T.M.R.Division, Shornur on 26-10-2004. In the certificate they remarked that no pulse on load and meter could not be calibrated. Meter is declared faulty. On going through the statements of PW1 and OPW1 and the Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant and opposite party it is clear that the meter bearing No.1299/82 installed at the premises of the complainant was faulty after 4-7-03 to 5-11-04. It is clear that the complainant has approached the opposite party to rectify the defects. But opposite party has not considered the grievance of the complainant. Moreover they have disconnected the connection and started dismantling proceedings which caused mental agony and loss to the complainant. Hence point No.1 is decided in favour of the complainant. 7.Point No.2: The complainant has prayed to cancel the bills dated, 4.7.03, 6.11.03, 6.1.04,15.3.04 and 5.5.04 and to declare the dismantling notices illegal and to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings. On going through the Ext. A1 to A15 it is revealed that the Electric Bills issued by the opposite parties dated, 6-11-03, 6-1-04, 6.3.04, and 5.5.04 and dismantling notice dated, 8-9-04 and 10-12-04 are illegal and the same is to be quashed. The complainant is also entitled to get the cost . In the result, the complainant is partly allowed. The Electric bills issued by the opposite parties to consumer No.6241 dated, 6.11.03, 6.1.04, 6.3.04 and 5.5.04 and dismantling notices dated, 8.9.04 and 10.12.04 are quashed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant as cost of this complaint. The opposite parties are directed to calculate the bill from 7.5.03 to 5.5.04 as fresh. They are directed to take Contd......7) 7 consumption for 3 months prior to 6.5.03 and 3 months consumption after 18-9-04 and to take average consumption of 6 months and issue bill on the basis of the same. The complainant is directed to pay the above bill with in 30 days on receipt of the bill. The above order is to be complied with in 30 days of this order Pronounced in open Forum on this the 22th day of May 2008.