BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 11/08/2011

Date of Order : 27/08/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 436/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is as follows :-

The 1^st complainant is the land lord and the 2^nd complainant is the tenant of the building since 31-07-2000. The 1^st complainant availed an electric connection to the building. Till the 2^nd half of the year 2008, the electricity meter was working properly and the average consumption was 1020 units. Thereafter, the complainants were told by the meter reader that the meter is faulty. The complainants requested the opposite party to replace the meter. But they did not care to replace the meter. In spite of that the opposite parties had taken the average consumption of 6 consecutive months, immediately prior to the notice of the fault of the meter and issued the bills on that basis. The complainants had been paying the bill amounts. In November 2009, the meter was replaced, and thereafter, the 2^nd complainant installed 8 air conditioners in the building. The 2^nd complainant has been promptly paying electricity bills. On 14-07-2011, the opposite parties issued a bill to the tune of Rs. 3,18,992/- for a period of 19 months from 2008 to November 2009 as arrears. The additional bill and demand therein is highly belated and barred by limitation. The opposite parties issued the additional bill without taking into consideration that the air conditioners were fitted subsequent to the replacement of the meter. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the bill in question. The complainants are entitled to get set aside the disputed bill together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :-

The electrical energy is used for running a commercial activity and not for the livelihood of the 2^nd complainant as stated in the complaint and the complainants do not come within the purview of consumer as defined in Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. On 17-04-2008, the officials of the opposite parties conducted an inspection at the premises of the 2^nd complainant and found that the energy meter is not working properly. Thereafter, the opposite parties charged the average consumption of 1020 units as admitted by the complainant as per Rules and paid the charges. The 2^nd complainant has installed the air conditioners without sanction from the opposite parties and without enhancing the connected load. The complainants were taking undue advantage of the faulty meter and consuming much more quantity of energy. The opposite parties had issued the bill for Rs. 3,18,992/- based on the audit report by the internal Audit wing of the K.S.E. Board, which observed that the consumption had become higher after the replacement of the meter. The fitting of the air conditioners had not been made known to the opposite parties. In that event, the complainants are liable to be penalized for unauthorised additional load. The opposite parties are entitled to realize the current charge as provided under Regulation 33 of the K.S.E. Board Terms and Conditions of the Supply 2005. The faulty meter could not be changed immediately, since there was acute shortage of 3 phase meter. The audit team has arrived at the sum of Rs. 3,18,992/- taking the average consumption of 6 months after the replacement of the meter. No penalty is demanded from the complainant towards short assessment. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants are legally liable to pay the amount as per the bill in question.

3. The witness for the complainants was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A11 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for both sides.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainants are consumers within the purview of the Consumer Protection act?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get set aside the impugned bill?

3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainants?

5. Point No. i. :- According to the 2^nd complainant, he is running the business for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Though the opposite parties dispute the same before this Forum during the proceedings, there is nothing before us to substantiate the same. Hence rejected.

6. Point No. ii. :- During the proceedings in this Forum, at the instance of the complainants vide order in I.A. No. 451/2011 dated 11-08-2011, this Forum directed the opposite parties not to disconnect the electric supply until further orders. The opposite parties duly complied with the above.

7. According to the complainants, when the meter reader intimated them that the meter was defunct, immediately they requested the opposite parties to replace the defective meter and they had been remitting the electricity charges as fixed by the opposite parties till the replacement of the faulty meter. The complainants stated that immediately after the replacement of the electricity meter, they set up 8 air conditioners could have been the reason for the sudden spurt in the consumption of electrical energy. They maintained that they have been remitting the electricity charges on the basis of the regular bills issued by the opposite parties and issuance of Ext. A10, the disputed bill is against natural justice.

8. On the contrary, the opposite parties contend that they are in law permitted to levy the electricity charges as per Regulation 33 (2) of the K.S.E. Board Terms and Condition of Supply 2005, since they have only levied average electricity charges till the replacement of the electricity meter in November 2009. They state that they could not replace the faulty meter, since there was acute shortage of 3 phase meter. According to them, the complainants are liable to pay the amount as per the bill in question.

9. Admittedly, the electricity meter in the connection was replaced in November 2009. Ext. A11 goes to show that the opposite parties had been accepting electricity charges from the complainants for 1020 units which they arrived at by taking average consumption. Regulation 33 sub-clause 2 reads as follows :-

“Reading of Meter and Preparation of Invoice – (1) Meter reading will be taken by the employees or the persons authorised by the Board and record the same.

(2) If the Board is unable to raise a bill on meter reading due to its non-recording or malfunctioning, the Board shall issue a bill based on the previous six months average consumption. In such cases the meter shall be replaced within one month. 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 three months after replacement of meter.”

10. In the instant case, admittedly the actual consumption of electricity of the 2^nd complainant for 19 months is not available till the replacement of the meter in November 2009. The average consumption of electricity by the 2^nd complainant subsequent to the replacement of the meter cannot be taken retrospectively as per the above provision, since evident from Exts. A3, A4 and A5, the complainants set up the air conditioners in November 2009 thereafter only. In short, the average consumption of electric energy for the period of 19 months cannot be taken in tune with Regulation 33 (2) of the K.S.E. Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. At this juncture , it is pertinent to note that the opposite parties failed to replace the defective meter within a month as stipulated in the above provision according to them they could not replace the meter in time, since 3 phase meter was not available with them. But Ext. A11 goes to show that the opposite parties had received 92 three phase meters during the period, however, they did not take any steps in this case to replace the meter of the 2^nd complainant in time for their own reasons it is beyond explanation why such a stand had been taken by the opposite parties. Since the actual electricity consumption of the 2^nd complainant could not be taken for the period prior to the replacement of the meter, the payment of electricity charges for 19 months @ 1020 units, mutually agreed by the parties meets ends sufficiently. Had the opposite parties taken timely action to replace the electricity meter of the complainants, this complaint could have been avoided. In that view of the matter, we are only to hold that the calculation as per Ext. A10 goes against the Rules and Regulations of the K.S.E. Board and cannot be upheld, especially since the 2^nd complainant set op the air conditioners in November 2009 only. To sum up, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainants are not liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A10 the impugned bill.

11. The other contention raised by the opposite parties is that the complainants have not obtained any sanction to enhance the connected load. Neither parties furnished the actual connected load approved to the complainants. However, the complainants are legally bound to regularize the excess connected load found. So, we are of the view that the opposite parties are at liberty to take any action in furtherance according to law bindingly on both parties.

12. Point No. iii. :- The primary grievance of the complainants having been met squarely and adequately, order for compensation is not at all warranted.

13. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-

1. The order in I.A. No. 451/2011 dated 11-08-2011 is made absolute.

2. We set aside Ext. A10 bill.

3. The complainants shall take immediate steps to regularize the unauthorised connected load if at all on account of the set up of the air conditioners.

4. If the complainants fail to comply with the above direction, the opposite parties are at liberty peremptorily to take appropriate legal action against the complainants, if advised so.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of August 2012.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========