THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No69/2007 Friday, the 30th day of October, 2009. Petitioner : K.K. Najeeb Kunnakkadu House, Nadackal P.O Erattupetta. (By Adv. P.V Krishnakumar) Vs. Opposite party : 1) The KSEB Vaidyuthibhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum Reptd. By its Secretary K.S Sebastian,
Senior Superintendent, Electrical Section, Erattupetta. The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Section, Erattupetta.
O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Case of the petitioners is as follows: Petitioner availed an Electric connection from the opposite party to the petitioners business concern under the name and style on Supreme Plastic with vide consumer No. 18266. According to the petitioner said business is his only source of livelihood. Petitioner was regularly paying bills which were issued by the opposite party. Electric connection was availed by executing minimum guaranty agreement. As per MGA an amount of Rs. 5625/- had to be paid by the petitioner for a period of 7 years. According to the petitioner opposite party had given electric connection from the transformer which has installed by the opposite party from the cost paid by the petitioner as per the MGA . As per MGA opposite party is liable to reduce the -2- minimum guarantee amount proportionally . For every connection given from the transformer installed at the cost of the petitioner. Petitioner complained about the same to opposite party. Opposite party instead of redress the complaint became inimical terms with the petitioner. Opposite party on 24..1..2007 issued a bill to the petitioner for his consumption for the period from 11/04 to 4/06, as a short assessment bill, for an amount of Rs. 1,83,470/-. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in issuing a short assessment bill is a a clear deficiency in service . So petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill and also for a revision of the minimum guarantee amount. Petitioner claims Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party since petitioner availed the electric connection for running a factory for profit making business petition itself is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted that demand cum disconnection notice, for an amount of Rs. 1,83,439/-, Dtd: 27..1..2007 was issued by the opposite party. According to the opposite party connection was given with a CT meter. The CT ratio and the meter ratio were 200/5. The meter had a dial factor or multiplication factor of 10. So, in order to get the actual unit consumed the meter reading shown in the meter will have to be multiplied with 10. But due to over sight this multiplication factor was not noted in the service connection register and meter reading diary. Hence bills were issued without reckoning the multiplication factor. So, by calculating the short assessed amount disputed bill was issued to the petitioner. The fact that the multiplication factor was not reckoned was noticed during the audit by the Regional Audit Officer, Pala. Opposite party contented -3- that the board has every right to rectify the mistake and to demand the current charges due from the consumer. According to opposite party bill issued is for actual consumed of electricity and is not time barred. So, they pray for a dismissal of the petition. Points for determinations are: Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 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 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite party. Court Exhibit X1 and M.O I marked. Point No. 1 Opposite party filed a petition before the Forum for sending the meter which is installed in the premises of the petitioner to electrical inspector for testing . Report of the electrical inspector was received and report is marked as Ext. X 1. From Ext. X 1 report it can be seen that energy meter is to be multiplied by the dial factor (multiplication factor of 10). The inspector further, reported that in order to get the actual energy consumption the reading indicated in the energy meter is to be multiplied with the dial factor 10. The disputed meter produced is marked as MO I. In M.O I also after the meter reading ( X 10) is shown. So the normal inference that can be drawn is that in order to get the actual consumption the reading indicated in the energy meter is to be multiplied by 10. Or in other words when 10 units are consumed only one unit were recorded. Opposite party produced the meter changing register and said document is -4- marked as Ext. B5. From Ext. B5 it can be seen that the consumption of the petitioner was more during the period of December to July when compared to other months. In Ext. B4 the old meter number of the petitioner is shown as 0810498 by comparing the meter reading of the old meter and the meter in dispute. It can be seen that the consumption shown by the disputed meter is more or less 10 times less. In our view the issuance of the short assessment bill is for actual consumed energy and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2009. 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: Bill Dtd: 20..11..2004 Ext. A1(a) Bill Dtd: 20..12..2004 Ext. A1(b) Bill Dtd: 20..1..2005 Bill Dtd: 19..3..2005 Bill Dtd: 20..4..2005 Bill Dtd: 27..5..2005 Bill Dtd: 15..6..2005 Bill Dtd: 15..7..2005 Bill Dtd: 12..8..2005 Bill Dtd: 12..9..2005 Bill Dtd: 26..10..2005 Bill Dtd: 10..11..2005 Bill Dtd: 10..01..2006 Bill Dtd: 10..05..2006 Bill Dtd: 24..06..2006 Bill Dtd: 10..7..2006 Bill Dtd: 10..8..2006 Bill Dtd: 11..09..2006 Bill Dtd:10..10..2006 Bill Dtd: 10..11..2006 Bill Dtd: 11..12..2006
Ext. A2: Bill Dtd: 22..01..2007 Ext. A3: Copy of calculation Ext. A4: Letter Dtd: 24..1..2007 issued to the petitioner by the opposite party. Ext. A5: Bill Dtd: 27..1..2007. Documents for the Opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of service connection effected register. Ext. B2: Copy of meter reading dairy Ext. B3: Copy of audit report Ext. B4: Copy of meter c hanging register Ext. B5: Copy of meter reading register from 11/04 to 9/07.
X1: Meter testing report M.O I Meter with vide serial No. 0810498.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
amp/ 6 cs.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
