THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No. 190/2007 Friday, the 29th day of January, 2010. Petitioner : Emmanuel George, Aykkara Kunnel House, Hospital Road, Athirampuzha Kottayam Dist. (By Adv. P.G Girija) Vs. Opposite parties : 1) The Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom Thiruvananthapuram Reptd. By its Secretary 2) The Asst.Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Athirampuzha O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner is a beneficiary of the service availed by opposite party Electricity Board with vide Consumer No. 2845. Electric connection is in the name of petitioner’s wife. Petitioner had been regularly paying bills issued by the opposite party . The average bill amount paid by the petitioner from 2003 to 2006 is below Rs. 1,800/-. Opposite party issued exorbitant bills on 18..1..2007 for Rs. 3193/- and bill Dtd: 16..3..2007 for Rs. 5143 /- to the petitioner . Even though the bill was excessive and not based on the actual consumption of electricity petitioner paid the bill to avoid disconnection. Petitioner informed the second opposite party that the meter of the petitioner is faulty and requested to replace the same with a new one. But opposite party instead of redressing the petitioner’s grievance issued another exorbitant bill on -2- 16..5..2007 and subsequently on 20..7..2007. According to the petitioner issuance of the said bills by the opposite party and the refusal to replace defective meter, after request, with a new one amounts to deficiency in service. So, petitioner prays for a direction to set aside the bill Dtd: 18..1..2007, 16..3..2007, 16..5..2007 and 20..7..2007 and also to allow the petitioner to pay an average the previous bills before the meter become faulty. Petitioner also prays Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party, petitioner is not a consumer as per section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Consumer is being billed bimonthly under spot bill method. The reading were taken regularly and bill was issued for the recorded consumption shown in the energy meter. The average bimonthly consumption of the consumer is 810 units from 1/05 to 12/07. According to the opposite party bills were issued for the actual consumption of energy and there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite parties. -3- Point No. 1 As per the request of the opposite party meter of the petitioner was sent to the department of Electrical Inspectorate, meter testing standard laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. The report received is marked as Ext. X1. In X1 the inference of the Electrical Inspector is that the meter is recording more than the actual energy consumption which is in excess by 154 % to 112% at various load condition. Opposite party produced a copy of meter reading register of the consumer and said document is marked as Ext. B2. From Ext. B2 it can be seen that the consumption of electrical energy of the petitioner is high from 18..1..2007 onwards than the previous consumption.. So, we are of the view that the case of the petitioner that the meter of the petitioner was faulty from 18..1..2007 is correct. Act of the opposite party in issuing bill for exorbitant consumption based on a faulty meter is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result the bill Dtd: 18..1..2007 for Rs. 3193/-, bill Dtd: 16..3..2007 for Rs. 5143/-, bill Dtd: 16..5..2007 for Rs. 8517/- and bill Dtd: 20..7..2007 for Rs. 6110/- is set aside and opposite party is ordered to issue fresh bill as per regulation 33 (2) as if the meter of the petitioner was faulty on 18..1..2007. Opposite party is also ordered to replace the faulty meter with fault free meter, if not replaced so far. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000./- for loss and sufferings -4- and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner. Order shall be complied with within one month. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the Petitioner: Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 18..1..2007 Ext. A2: Bill Dtd: 16..3..2007 Ext. A3: Bill Dtd: 16..5..2007 Ext. A4: Bill Dtd: 20..7..2007 Ext. A5: Copy of complaint Dtd: 18..5..2007 issued to Emmanuel George to A.E KSEB, Athirampuzha. Documents for the opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of Consumer Personal Deposit Register. Ext. B2: Copy of meter reading register of Consumer No. 2845. X1: Report of Electrical Inspector, Meter Testing Standard Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/ 5 cs.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
