KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
FA.285/08
JUDGMENT DATED 4.1.2011
PRESENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavanam
Pattom.
2. The Asst. Engineer,
KSEB, Nattakam, Kottayam. -- APPELLANTS (By Adv.V.S.Vineethkumar)
Vs.
Suresh Babu.T.N.
“Thadathil”
Mulavattam.P.O, -- RESPONDENT
Kottayam.
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC No.56.07 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/-. The complainant disputed the sustainability of the said bill for Rs.31,380/-. It was alleged that no amount is due to the KSEB by way of arrears of electricity charges and the claim for Rs.31,380/- is legally unsustainable. Thus, the complainant prayed for cancellation of the impugned bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/-.
2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the impugned bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/- was issued as per the report of audit officer, KSEB, Kottayam and that the said bill is based on the back assessment of electricity charges for the period from 2/03 to 4/05 that during the said period the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was faulty. It was further contended that the impugned bill for Rs.31,380/- was issued as per Section 42 (3) of the terms and conditions of supply, 2005. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC.No.56/07.
3. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B3 documents were produced and marked from the side of the parties to the complaint in CC.No.56/07. Both parties have also filed proof affidavit in support of their respective pleadings. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 28th August 2008 allowing the complaint in CC.56/07 and thereby cancelled the impugned bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/-. Hence the present appeal.
4. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. So, we heard he learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the impugned bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/- was issued based on the average consumption of energy during the period from 2/03 to 4/05. During the said period, the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant was faulty. He also relied on regulation 42 (3) of the Kerala State Electricity Board, terms and conditions of supply, 2005 and justified the action of the opposite parties in issuing the impugned bill based on assessment of average consumption of energy under regulation 42 (3) of the Kerala State Electricity Board, terms and conditions of supply, 2005. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below in CC.56/07.
5. The points that arise for consideration are :-
1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/ opposite parties in issuing the impugned bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/-?
2. Whether the appellants/opposite parties can be justified in re-assessing the energy consumption of the respondent/complainant (consumer) at 385 units during the period from February 2003 to April 2005?
3. Whether the Forum below can be justified in cancelling the impugned bill (Ext.A1) dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/-?
6. POINT 1 TO 3:-
There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer of KSEB with consumer No.4627006487. In short Consumer No.6487. The respondent/complainant would come within the territorial limits of electrical section Nattakom. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant has been paying the bi-monthly bills which were issued by KSEB regularly and promptly and that there was no arrears of electricity charges due from the respondent/complainant being Consumer No.6487. Thus, it can be concluded that the respondent/complainant was very much prompt and regular in remitting the electricity charges based on the electricity bills received by him.
7. The respondent/complainant was served with bill dated 27.1.07 for an amount of Rs.31,380/-. Ext.A1 is the aforesaid bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/-. But, the details regarding the said bill were not provided by KSEB while issuing A1 bill for Rs.31,380/-. It was also specified inA1 bill that on failure to pay the said bill amount on or before the due date (27.2.07) the electricity connection will be disconnected.
Regulation 21 (1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 deals with contents of electricity bill. As per Regulation 21 (1) (a) to (0), the KSEB Being the licensee is bound to give those details which are enumerated under Regulation 21 (1) (a) to (0) . A perusal of A1 bill would make it clear that the opposite parties failed to follow Regulation 21 (1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 which came into force on 2.3.05. Therefore, the opposite parties were legally bound to give all the details enumerated under Regulation 21 (1) (a) to (0). The Forum below has rightly held the issuance of A1 bill without following the provisions of Regulation 21 (1) (a) to (0) would amount to deficiency in service.
8. On getting A1 bill dated 27.1.07, the respondent/ complainant issued a written complaint dated 5.2.07 to the second appellants/second opposite party, the Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB, Nattakom. As per the said complaint, the respondent/complainant requested the second opposite party to give the details of A1 bill and the reason or ground for demanding the amount covered by A1 bill dated 27.1.07. The submission of such a complaint dated 5.2.07 is not disputed by the appellants/opposite parties. On the other hand, the second opposite party/Asst Engineer, Electrical Section KSEB, Nattakom issued a reply dated 9.2.07. Ext.A3 is copy of the said reply dated 9..2..07 issued by the second opposite party/Asst. Engineer to the complainant Consumer no.6487. Ext.B2 is also copy of the very same letter dated 9.2.07 issued by the second opposite party/Asst. Engineer. In A3 (B2) letter the complaint dated 5.2.07 is referred. It is in the said letter dated 9.2.07, the second opposite party gave the reason or ground for issuance of A1 bill dated 27.1.07. It is stated that A1 bill is the back assessment bill by re-assessing the average consumption of the complainant at 385 units during the period from 2/03 to 4/05, during the said period the meter was faulty and the complainant/consumer was assessed only for 10 units of energy. Thus, the complainant/consumer is directed to pay Rs.31,380/- based on back assessment of the energy consumption. It is also stated in A3 letter that the average consumption has been assessed by taking the consumption for the succeeding period of 6 months, after replacement of the defective meter on 15.4.05. The complainant was also given the liberty to pay the said amount of Rs.31,380/- in 5 installments. It is thereafter, the complainant/ consumer preferred the complaint in CC No.56/07 before the CDRF, Kottayam challenging the correctness of the back assessment bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/-.
9. Ext.B3 is photocopy of the meter reading register which was produced from the side of the opposite parties. The aforesaid copy of the meter reading register is pertaining to Consumer No.6487 and the consumer is Suresh Babu. It is to be noted that entries in B3 meter reading register have not been proved by examining the person who recorded the consumption of energy. A perusal of B3 meter reading register would give an indication that from October 2003 onwards, the average consumption for Consumer No.6487 was fixed at 10 units. It can also be seen that from 6.10.04 onwards, the average consumption was fixed at 18 units. It would also show that on 15.4.05 the meter was changed with initial reading at 5 units. It can also been seen that even prior to October 2003, the average consumption was taken at 10 units. Thus, from August 2002 onwards, the average consumption has been taken as 10 units; and based on the said average consumption spot bills were issued to the complainant/consumer. But, nowhere it is stated that the meter was faulty. At the same time, the readings recorded from February 2002 onwards would give an indication that the meter was not recording he consumption or that proper readings were not taken by the meter reader. It is also not available as to how the average consumption was fixed at 10 units. A perusal of B3 copy of the meter reading register would show that the opposite parties cannot be justified in holding that the meter was faulty during February 2003 to April 2005. The meter reading register would show that even prior to that date the meter was not recording the actual consumption. It is also to be noted that subsequently from October 2004 onwards, the average consumption was taken at 18 units. No reason is also stated for fixing the average consumption at 18 units. Another important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the consumption recorded as 38 units from 6.2.01. No details are available for perusal. Ext.B3 contains only the readings from 6.2.01 up to 6.12.05 with respect to Consumer No.6487. But, the original meter reading register was not available for perusal. Even B3 copy of the meter reading register is not a readable copy. No reason is stated for non production of the original meter reading register; and the failure to examine the person who recorded the entries in the meter reading register or the competent person to depose about the entries in the meter reading register. These circumstances would give an indication that the appellants/opposite parties were not properly taking the consumption of energy and they failed to record the readings in the meter reading register. It would in turn give an inference that the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant was not properly recording the consumption and that KSEB officials acted as silent spectators. So, the issuance of back assessment bill based on B3 meter reading register cannot be upheld.
10. The definite case of the appellants/opposite parties is that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer was faulty from February 2003 up to April 2005. The aforesaid case of the appellants/opposite parties would show that KSEB (licensee) failed to replace the defective meter. The KSEB was negligent in not replacing the defective meter and permitting the defective meter to continue recording consumption for more than 2 years. B3 copy of the meter reading register would give an indication that the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant was defective from February 2001 onwards. The readings recorded in B3 meter reading register would suggest that the said meter was faulty from February 2001. If that be so, the KSEB being the licensee failed to replace the defective meter for a period of more than 4 years. No acceptable reason is stated by the appellants/opposite parties for the failure to replace the defective meter. The KSEB was bound to replace the meter immediately at any rate within a period of one month from the date of detection of faulty nature of the meter. As per Regulation 33 (2) of the KSEB terms and conditions of supply 2005, the Board is bound to replace the meter within one month from the date of detection of the faulty nature of the meter. Regulation 42 (3) also stipulates replacement of the faulty meter by a new one. At any rate the long delay and failure in replacing the defective meter would amount to deficiency in service. The Forum below is perfectly justified in holding that there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. Appellants/opposite parties assessed the average consumption of electricity by the complainant/consumer during the period from February 2003 to April 2005 by invoking the provisions of Regulation 42 (3) of the KSEB terms and conditions of supply, 2005. It reads as follows.
42 (3):-
“The consumer may report any complaint regarding meter to the concerned Electrical Section. The inspection of the meter will be carried out using the standard reference meter (Single Phase/Three Phase) available in the Section office which is tested, calibrated and sealed by the Electrical Inspectorate. If meter is found faulty such meters shall be replaced immediately at the expense of the Board. If the existing meter after having found faulty is replaced with a new one, the consumption recorded during the period in which the meter was faulty shall be reassessed based on the average consumption for the previous six months prior to replacement of meter. If the average consumption for the previous six months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason, the consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding six months after replacement of meter and excess claimed if any, shall be adjusted in the future current charge bills.”
12. The provisions of Regulation 42 (3) would make it clear that the appellants/opposite parties have not complied with the aforesaid provisions while fixing the average consumption of energy during the period in which the meter was faulty. It is also to be noted that the average consumption is to be taken based on the average consumption for the previous 6 months prior to replacement of the defective meter. Only if the average consumption for the previous 6 months cannot be taken, then only the average consumption for the succeeding 6 months after replacement of the defective meter can be taken. In the present case on hand, appellants/opposite parties have no case that the meter was defective or faulty prior to February 2003. It is true; that B3 meter reading register would give an indication that prior to February 2003 also the meter was defective or faulty. But, the appellants/opposite parties have no such case. If they had such a case then they should have issued back assessment bill for the period from February, 2001. In such a situation, the consumption recorded by energy meter prior to February, 2001 is to be taken for assessing the average consumption for the period during which the meter was faulty. In the present case, the appellants/opposite parties were bound to re-assess the average consumption based on the consumption recorded by the energy meter prior to February 2003. No reason is stated for not taking the consumption for the previous 6 months. If that be so, the average consumption of energy fixed at 385 units based on the consumption recorded by the replaced meter for the succeeding 6 months cannot be accepted. The aforesaid method is against the provisions of Regulation 42 (3). No sufficient reason is stated for not taking the previous 6 months consumption for re-assessing the average consumption for the period from February 2003 to April 2005.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants/oppositeparties has argued for the position that previous 6 months consumption referred to or mentioned in Regulation 42 (3) is with respect to the period of 6 months just before replacement of the defective meter by a new meter. The aforesaid submission made by the learned standing counsel for the appellants/opposite parties cannot be accepted. A careful analysis of the regulation 42 (3) would make it clear that the previous 6 months consumption mentioned in regulation 42 (3) refers to the period of 6 months during which the defective meter was recording the consumption correctly. In other words, the previous 6 months readings referred to the readings recorded by the meter before the same becoming faulty.
14. The appellants/opposite parties themselves have admitted this fact in B1 letter dated 14.2.06 issued by the Regional Audit Officer, Kottayam to the Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Nattakom. In the second page of B1 letter under the heading “Faulty Meter Billing” it is specifically stated as follows –
“As per the rule in force re-assessment of current charge could have been done for previous 6 months/meter faulty period based on the average consumption of the meter before becoming faulty or the average consumption of the new meter provided non availability of average consumption of the old meter”.
15. The aforesaid admission would make the position more clear. Thus, the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the appellants/opposite parties is against the aforesaid admission made by the appellants themselves. More over, a mere reading of regulation 42 (3) of the KSEB terms and condition of supply, 2005 would also make it clear that the previous 6 months consumption refers to the 6 months period during which the energy meter was recording properly, that is just prior to the meter becoming faulty. Thus, it can be concluded that the average consumption re-assessed by the appellants/opposite parties based on the succeeding 6 months consumption is also not acceptable as the same is against the provisions of Regulation 42 (3).
16.The back assessment was made for the period from February 2003 to April 2005. Kerala State Electricity Board terms and conditions of supply, 2005 came into force with effect from 1.2.06. Prior to the said terms and conditions of supply, 2005 the provisions of the KSEB conditions of supply of electrical energy, 1990 was in force. As far as the present case is concerned, the provision of the conditions of supply of electrical energy 1990 was applicable. Clause 31 (c ) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy 1990 deals with the assessment of average consumption for issuing electricity bills during the period in which the meter was faulty. Clause 31 (c ) reads as follows –
31 (C )
In the event of any meter being found incorrect (which includes meter ceasing to record, running fast or slow, creeping or running in reverse direction) and where the actual errors on readings cannot be ascertained, the meter will be declared faulty and the correct quantity of energy shall be determined by taking the average consumption for the previous three months, due regard being paid to the conditions of working, occupancy etc. If the average consumption for the previous three months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason, the correct consumption will be determined based on the average consumption for the succeeding three months.
17. Where any defects or dispute arise as to the correctness of the meter, the matter shall be decided upon by the electrical inspector to Government upon the application of either the board or the consumer. During such periods, the consumer will be charged only the meter minimum. After determining the correct consumption demand will be made and necessary adjustment made in the next invoice issued”.
18. The provisions contained in clause 31 (c ) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy, 1990 would make it clear that the average consumption is to be determined based on the consumption for the previous 3 months and only in the event of previous consumption cannot be taken, then only the consumption for the succeeding 3 months can be taken for assessing the average consumption for the period during which the meter was faulty. So, the average consumption fixed by the appellants/opposite parties based on succeeding 6 months cannot be treated as the correct procedure or method. Admittedly, the appellants/opposite parties failed to follow the provisions of clause 31 ( c) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy, 1990 which was applicable to the present case for assessing the consumption for the period from 2/03 to 4/05 during which the meter was faulty. Thus, in all respects, the back assessment bill dated 27.1.07 is legally un-sustainable. The Forum below is justified in cancelling the aforesaid back assessment bill.
19. Ext. B1 letter from the Regional Audit Officer, Kottayam to the Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Nattakom would make it abundantly clear that the back assessment bill is issued by the second opposite party based on the direction given by the Regional Audit Officer, Kottayam. It is to be noted that the Regional Audit Officer had no occasion to consider the faulty nature of the meter. He simply relied on B3 meter reading register. But in fact, the Regional Audit officer failed to peruse the entire meter reading register. The Regional Auditor himself was at fault in coming to the conclusion that the meter was faulty from February 2003 to April 2005. The second opposite party cannot be justified in issuing A1 back assessment bill based on the direction issued by Regional Audit Officer, Kottayam.
20. It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant did not get an opportunity to get the correct assessment of the consumption of energy during the disputed period. It is also to be noted that there is no acceptable evidence on record to show that the meter was faulty during the aforesaid period. It is not proper to come to the conclusion that the meter was faulty based on the entries in B3 meter reading register. Those entries have not been proved or established by examining the concerned official who is in charge of the meter reading register. Thus, the appellants/opposite parties have also not succeeded in establishing their case regarding the faulty nature of the meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer during the period from 2/03 to 4/05. Thus, in all respects, the impugned bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/- is liable to be cancelled. The Forum below has rightly cancelled the same.
21. The forgoing discussions and the findings thereon would make it clear that the appellants/opposite parties cannot be justified in issuing A1 back assessment bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/-. There was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in issuing the impugned bill for Rs.31,380/-. There occurred failure on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in replacing the defective meter. Even according to the appellants there occurred delay of more than 2 years in replacing the defective meter. The aforesaid inaction on the part of the appellants/opposite parties would amount deficiency in service. They also failed to follow the provisions of the conditions of supply of electrical energy 1990 and also the provisions of Kerala State Electricity Board terms and conditions of supply, 2005 in re-assessing the average consumption for the alleged period of 2/03 to 4/05 during which period the meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer was said to have been faulty. The Forum below is perfectly justified in cancelling the impugned bill dated 27.1.07 for Rs.31,380/-. The Forum below has considered the facts, circumstances and evidence on record in the correct perspective. We do not find any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. These points are answered according.
In the result, appeal is dismissed. Impugned order dated 28.8.08 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC.No.56/07 is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
