KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 313/2009

JUDGMENT DATED: 10/12/2010

 PRESENT:-

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU                  :     PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR     :    MEMBER

 APPELLANTS

1.        Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vyduthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.        Executive Engineer,

Electical Division,

Chittoor,

Palakkad. 

3.        Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Section,

Chittoor, Palakkad.

                                 (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Madavoor V. Mohan &

                                                                    K.S. Vijayakumar)

                                                        Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.     T.A. Abdul Basheer,

Manchira,

Chittoor P.O., Palakkad.

2.     Crystelpet  & Allied Industries,

Manchira, Chittoor P.O.,

         Palakkad

Rep. by its Manager, T.A. Salim Ahamed.

                      (Rep. by Adv. Sri. K.A. Abdul Salam  &

                                      Kasha K. Malayan)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.  S. CHANDRAMOHAN  NAIR        :    MEMBER

The order dated 29.4.2009 of CDRF, Palakkad in C.C. 135/07 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel Ext. A2 bill dated 21.3.2007 with further orders to pay   compensation of Rs. 7,000/-  and cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant.

The case put forth by the complainants before the Forum was that they were paying electricity  charges  regularly and that the connected load was enhanced from 21kw to 37 kws and further that on 26.5.2006.  The Divisional Special squad  of the KSEB conducted a surprise inspection and found out that the meter was running sluggishly  and the consumption record was  much less than the actual consumption.  The meter was changed and as per the readings in the new meter it was found that the consumption per month was 4882 units in the place of 1452 units recorded  in the previous meter and a bill for Rs. 4,29,364/- was issued for the alleged escaped assessment for the period from 12/02/ to 5/06  It was  also the case of the complainant that the bill was issued much later than the date of inspection and the complainant had not consumed so much of energy during the previous period and there was no allegation of theft or other discrepancies and therefore  the bill issued was illegal.  The alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill and to pay compensation and costs. 

          The opposite parties in their version contended that there was a surprise inspection in the premises of the complainant on 26.5.2006 by the Anti Power Theft  Squad  of the KSEB and it was detected that the meter was running sluggishly,  recording less consumption.  It was also submitted that on changing the meter it was found that the consumption was on a very higher side and the bill for the escaped consumption from 12/2002 to 5/2006 at an average of 4382 units per month was issued which the complainant was liable to pay.  It was further submitted that as per section 145 of the electricity Act, the complainant was expressly barred from filing a complaint without exhausting the remedies provided by the Act.  It is also their case that the complainants were remitting their monthly charges based on the consumption shown in the replaced meter and the complainant had no case that the replaced meter was a defective one.  Contending that there was no deficiency in service the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          The evidence consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the respective parties and Ext. A1 to A7 on the side of the complainant and B1 to B6 on the side of the opposite parties. 

Heard both sides

          The Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is perse illegal and hence unsustainable.  It is his very case that the Forum below did not appreciate the relevant rules and regulations and also the citations submitted by the opposite parties.  It is argued by him that the bill issued was consequent to the finding that the meter was running slow which meant that the meter was not recording the actual consumption made by the complainant.  He has also submitted that only the  average consumption after  replacing the meter was taken into account for issuing the bill for 42 months and the complainant was liable to pay the said amount.  He has also submitted that the citations produced by the appellants/opposite parties were not considered by the Forum below while passing the impugned order.

          On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  It is his case that the connection was taken as back in 2002 and there was no defect in the meter and the opposite parties had no case that the complainant had misused the energy and made any mal practices in the functioning of the meter.  The learned counsel has also advanced the contention that the opposite parties cannot be justified in issuing such a bill for Rs. 4,29,364/- for the period of 42 months on the ground that the meter was running slowly.  He has also argued that the opposite parties did not subject the meter to any test and there is no finding to the effect that the meter was running slow apart from the report of the inspection in squad.  He has also relied on the decision of this commission in Secretary, KSEB Vs. Justin James(2010(1)CPR 262) where it is held that a bill raised on the ground that the meter is not functioning properly,   the procedure adopted by the energy supplier without testing the meter,  cannot be supported and the same principle has to be adopted in the instant cases also as the bill was issued on the presumption that the meter was running sluggishly. 

          On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, respondent and also on perusing the records we find that it is seen that the bill for Rs. 4,29,364 for a period of 42 months from 12/2002 to 5/2006 has been issued  based on the report of the inspection squad that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was running sluggishly and also that the consumption recorded in the replaced meter after inspection was on a higher side.  The appellants would argue that there was no need for testing the meter and the learned counsel had invited our attention to the decision of the Honorable  High Court in South India Marine Products  Company Vs.  KSEB (1995(2)KLT 167)  where it is held that so long as there is no defect in the meter no question of testing the meter arises.  The learned counsel has also advanced the contention that the Forum below had not considered this aspect in its correct perspective   We had gone through the decision cited above.  It is found that the case related to the recording of consumption in a meter where the wiring given to the meter was not properly made and in this context, the Hon’ble High Court had opined that the question whether the meter is correct or not does not arise.  But in the instant case it is to be found that the bill was issued on a mere presumption that the meter was running sluggishly and in such a circumstance, the above citation cannot be made applicable.  It is also to be found that the inspection was said to have been done on 26.5.2006.  But it is surprising enough to note that the bill was issued on 21.3.2007, much later than the date of inspection.  It is also to be found that the meter readers of the opposite parties were taking meter reading from the premises of the complainant from the very date of connection in the year 2002 and they were negligent in finding   out that the meter was running sluggishly for all the 42 months.  This Commission has also found that when the electricity bill has been raised on the ground that the meter was not functioning properly, such bill issued without subjecting the meter to proper testing cannot be justified .  We find that the Forum below had rightly ordered for the cancellation of Ext. A2 bill  and the same  is liable to be upheld.   We do so accordingly. 

          The Forum below had also ordered compensation of Rs. 7,000/- for the mental agony, harassment and injury. We find that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to the effect  that he has suffered  mental agony, harassment, injury or any loss subsequent to the issuance of the impugned bill.  Hence the direction  to pay compensation of Rs. 7,000/- is set aside.  However the order as  to cost is sustained.  

          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above.  Thereby the order canceling Ext. A2 Bill and the payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- are upheld .  The direction to pay compensation of Rs. 7,000/- is set aside.  In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are left to bear their respective costs.

                                  S. CHANDRAMOHAN  NAIR        :    MEMBER

                                    JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT