By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to cancel the additional bill dated 15.03.2014 and also directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant is doing bakery business along with her son Subhandh for and behalf of other co-owners in the premises where electricity connection is given by the Opposite Parties as per vide consumer No.600. The Complainant is paying regular bills issued to the Opposite Parties in time. The Complainant and other co-owners are depending soley on the income derived from the business conducted in the shop room for their lively hood. While so one 18.03.2014, the Complainant received an additional bill for Rs.25,645/- towards fixed charges and was directed to pay the amount on or before 30.03.2014. The said bill shows”Back Assessment 8/09 to 6/12 as per audit report” The Complainant submits that the back assessment made by the Opposite Parties on the basis of Audit report is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Aggrieved by this, the Complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the Opposite Parties contended that the electricity connection is given in the premises of Complainant is in the name of Late Sri. Abdul Rahman, Chembil, Kalpetta for commercial purpose under tariff LT 7B and connected load of 840 watts. No application is given to change the name and the Complainant is an outsider and has no locus standi to file the complaint. The bakery business is not for lively hood. It is for commercial purpose. The Opposite Party stated that the average bimonthly a energy consumption at the aforesaid premises was 304, 327, and 398 units during bi-months February, April and June 2009 respectively. The energy consumption in the premises had started declining from August to December 2009 to 167, 185 and 93 units respectively and during the said periods the consumer was billed for the energy recorded from the faulty meter and the consumer enjoyed the benefits for less electricity bills. When the energy consumption reduced to very negligible limits in February 2010, it was understood that the meter is faulty. Meter changed in 2012. The average energy consumption in the premise after replacing the faulty meter was found to be 321, 328, 636 units respectively during bi-months of June to October 2012. This clearly shows that the average consumption during February – June 2009 and June- October 2012 is almost same and is more than 300 units. The energy consumption in the consumer's premise has increased from February 2009 onwards. The audit wing deleted that the meter reading started decline in August 2009 itself and hence actual average consumption is 344 unit instead of 148 units charged and hence the assessment and subsequent bill issued.
3. On perusal of complaint, documents and version of Opposite Parties, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Relief and cost.
4. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents is marked as Ext.A1. The Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit and the Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the disputed bill issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant and co-owners are running the bakery business for lively hood and all periodical bills are paid in time. The case of Complainant is that the back assessment is made by the Opposite Party on the basis of Audit report is illegal. The contention of Opposite Party that the Complainant is doing the business for commercial purpose and the assessment made is legal. On perusal of documents and version it is found that the complaint in the meter is noticed in the year 2010. But Opposite Party changed the meter only in the year 2012. And the assessment is made in the year 2014 as per Audit Report. The Forum noticed that there is inordinate delay in changing the faulty meter by the Opposite Parties even if Opposite parties understood that the meter is faulty in the years 2010. Absolutely there is no explanation from the side of Opposite Party for such a delay. The meter changed in the year 2012. The Audit is conducted in the year 2013 and the notice issued to the Complainant only in the year 2014. As per 2005 (Terms and conditions) Regulation rule 13, an undercharged can be charged at any time when it becomes due. According to Opposite Parties, it becomes due as an audit. As per Ext.A1 disputed bill, the Opposite Parties have back assessed the bill from 8/09 to 6/2012. Hence the Opposite Parties changed the meter only in the year 2012 even if Opposite Parties knows that the meter is faulty in the year 2010. The Forum is of the view that there is deficiency from the part of Opposite Parties in changing the meter in time and it is not just and proper to assess the bill for the prior period of June 2012. It is the duty of Opposite parties to change the meter when it is noticed that the meter is faulty. So the above stated regulation is not applicable in this case. What prevented the Opposite Parties to change the meter in time and issue proper bill and why the Opposite parties waited up to Audit Report to claim the bill amount as per average calculation. There is no convincing answer from the side of Opposite Party to these questions. From the complaint and affidavit, it is found that the Complainant is running the bakery business for there lively hood and not for commercial purpose. So by analysing the entire evidence, the Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
5. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the
Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite parties are directed to cancel the bill dated 15.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.25,654/- issued to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite Parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of June 2015.
Date of Filing:28.03.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Sujatha Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Anil Kumar. A.P. Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section,
Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Electricity Bill. dt:15.03.2014.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
B1. Copy of Meter reading register (2 pages).
B2. Copy of Audit report.
