O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner's is as follows: The petitioner is a consumer of the KSEB with vide Consumer No. 4627006487. On 27..1..207 the opposite party issued a bill for an amount of Rs. 31380/- without stating any period or circumstances under which such a bill issued. According to the petitioner he is paying bimonthly bills regularly and promptly. The petitioner on 5..2..2007 filed the complaint to the A.E and reply was received on 9..2..2007. According to the petitioner issuance of a bill without stating any reason is clear deficiency of service and is liable to be cancelled. So the petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill dtd: 27..1..2007 for an amount of Rs. 31380/- and also he claims compensation in the tune of Rs. 10,000/- along with the cost of the proceedings. -2- Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party disputed bill is a back assessment bill dtd: 27..1..2007 for an amount of Rs. 31380/- and the same was issued as per the report of legal and Audit Officer, KSEB, Kottayam. The opposite party stated that the Electrical Meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was faulty from 2/03 to 4/05 and during the above mentioned meter faulty period the consumer was charged an amount of Rs. 117/-. The faulty meter was replaced on 15..4..2005 and after replacement of the faulty meter, based on the bimonthly consumption for a period of six months, additional bill is issued as per section 42 (3) of terms and condidtions of supply 2005. According to the opposite party, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So the opposite party prays for a dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determination: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to Ext. B3 on the side of the opposite parties. Point No. 1 The petitioner produced the disputed bill dtd: 27..1..2007 and same was marked as Ext. A1. In Ext. A1 there is no details regarding the amounts claimed by the opposite party. As per Section 21 of the Kerala Electricity supply code 2005. A bill shall contain a period covered by the bill, the date and value of current , previous meter reading in the -3- estimate, the applicable charges etc but in Ext. A1 no such things mentioned. . So, we are of the opinion that issuance of Ext. A1 is a short coming in the manner of performance which is required to be performed in law. Further more as per section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, no some due from any consumer shall be recoverable after a period of 2 years from the date when such some become first due. Accoroding to the opposite party fault with the meter was found on 2/03. As per regulation 33 (2) of the conditions of supply 2005, if the board is unable to raise bill on meter reading, due to non recording or mal functioning, the meter shall be replaced within one month. Here the board without removing the faulty meter for a period of long 2 years had issued the bill. If the meter was replaced after one month when it becomes faulty the board can assess average consumption by taking the succeeding 3 months consumption by instaling a new defect free meter. Further more, the faulty meter was not removed from the premises of the petitioner as per section 42 (3) of the conditions of supply of 2005. So we are of the opinion that issuance of an incomplete bill that too after a period of limitation as per section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 without complying the formality contemplated under the conditions of supply and even without an expert opinion of an electrical inspector, with regard to fault with the 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 petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result the bill dtd: 27..1..2007 for an amount of Rs. 31380/- is here by cancelled. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and sufferings no -4- compensation is ordered. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and Pronounced in this Open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2008.
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
