THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No.52/2008 Tuesday, the 30th day of March, 2010. Petitioner : Mary Joseph, Epayanjiliyil House, Ettumanoor Kottayam (By Adv. Joji John) Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum Reptd. By its Secretary. 2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Sub Division, Ettumanoor 3) The Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Ettumanoor. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party with vide consumer No. 3419. According to the petitioner electric connection of the petitioner was availed by way of shifting the old connection from petitioner’s old house to his new house. Petitioner was regularly paying current charges. On 14..2..2008 3rd opposite party issued an additional bill to the petitioner stating it as a reassessment bill for the period from 11/06 to 5/2007 since the meter of the petitioner was faulty. According to the petitioner issuance of the additional bill is without any basis and is a clear deficiency in service. So, petitioner -2- prays for a direction to the opposite party to cancel the bill Dtd: 14..2..2008 for an amount of Rs. 19,524/- petitioner also claims Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Ac cording to the opposite party consumer was billed as per the bimonthly spot bill system and spot biller issued bills and consumer paid the bill. From 10/06 meter of the petitioner was faulty and same was recorded by the meter reader. During the faulty period consumer was being charged for a meager average of 150 units bimonthly. On 22..5..2007 the faulty meter of the petitioner was replaced by a fault free meter. On 3..10..2007 audit team of opposite party conducted the billing audit of the consumer and a reassessment bill for an amount of Rs. 19524/- based on the average consumption of 6 months, after the replacement of the faulty meter was served to the petitioner. According to the opposite party the bill was issued as per law and o there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 document on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite party. -3- Point No. 1 According to the opposite party disputed bill is issued to the petitioner by taking the average electric consumption of 6 months after replacement of faulty meter. Opposite party admitted that meter was faulty from 10/2006. Faulty meter was replaced on 22..5..2007. According to the opposite party the consumer was billed as per bimonthly spot bill system and spot biller issued the bills based on the meter reading and consumer paid the bill before the meter become faulty. As per regulation 33 (2) of conditions of supply 2005. If the board is unable to raise a bill on meter reading due to its non recording or malfunctions. Board shall issue a bill based on the previous 6 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 consumption or any other reason consumption will be determined based on the meter reading of succeeding 3 months after replacement of the faulty meter. Opposite party has no case that the meter reading before the meter become faulty cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption. In the version opposite party admitted that petitioner was billed bimonthly by spot billing system and the spot biller issued the bills based on the meter reading. So, in our view the act of the opposite party in issuing short assessment bill taking the average six months consumption after replacement of the faulty with fault free meter is a clear deficiency in service. Further more, the faulty meter was not replaced within one month as per law. -4- Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1 petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. In the result bill Dtd: 14..2..2008 for an amount of Rs. 19,524/- is cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of bill Dtd: 14..2..2008. Documents for the opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of meter reading register. Ext. B2: Copy of meter changing register. By Order, Senior Superintendent amp/ 6 cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
