DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 16th day of July, 2007<br /> <br /> Present : Prof. O. Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> Mrs. K.P. Suma, Member<br /> <br /> CC. No. 110/06<br /> <br /> <br /> James Mathew Pannivelil<br /> S/o. Late Sri. P.C. Mathew<br /> Pannivelil Buildings<br /> Menonpara Road<br /> Kanjikode - Complainant<br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> 1.The Assistant Engineer<br /> Electrical Section<br /> K S E B Electrical Section<br /> Kanjikkode.<br /> <br /> 2.The Secretary,<br /> K S E B Electrical Section<br /> Thiruvananthapuram - Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By Prof. O. Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> <br /> The complainant herein complaints that he is a consumer of Electrical Section, K S E B, Kanjikkode bearing No.9655 for the past few years. He states that a meter which was fixed by the opposite party in his building was running in its ordinary course and used to receive bills for an amount Rs.6000/- to Rs.15,000/- depending upon an average consumption every month.<br /> <br /> - 2 - <br /> <br /> The complainant further states that he used to remit the bill amount promptly and the opposite party used to take to meter reading and issue the bill so both he and the opposite party had any complaint about the meter or its running or the bill amount as the meter had never showed faulty.<br /> <br /> The complainant in his allegation states that on 30.03.2005, the 1st opposite party changed the ordinary meter of him to an electronic meter, Suomoto. Thereafter also the consumption was showing the average level. The complainant says that on one day the opposite party issued a bill bearing No.131460 for a sum of Rs.52,376/- for the consumption prior to April 2005 and from March 2005 to October 2005. The bill showed that the calculation was made only on an average consumption prior to and after the change of new meter. The complainant says that he sent a letter to the opposite party on 22.05.06 expressing his shock and surprise to receive such exorbitant bill and requested the opposite party to waive the bill. He submits that he received letter from the opposite party on 28.06.2006 stating that the bill was issued on the difference in consumption recorded after the change of meter on 30.03.05, also the complainant had received another letter on 21.07.06 from the opposite party demanding records of the rented building. <br /> <br /> The complainant further states that the opposite party had no complaint that he had delayed in paying the regular electricity bill. He also states that he never handled the earlier ordinary meter nor the electronic meter which were installed by the opposite party. So there is no chance to raise an additional bill with an exorbitant amount, stating that it is on an average basis for the previous months. Hence the act of the opposite party clearly amounts to unfair trade practice.<br /> - 3 -<br /> Hence the complainant prays before the Forum to direct the opposite party to cancel and withdraw the disputed bill dated 12.05.2005, and to pay him a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the hardship caused to him and also to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.<br /> <br /> Notice was issued to opposite party for appearance. Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. <br /> <br /> The Electricity Board has decided to change the mechanical power meters of consumers having connected load of 10 KW and more and the same was done. In the case of the complainants power meter bearing consumer No.9655, which was the connection coming under commercial tariff LT VIIA, the mechanical power meter was to be changed with electronic meter also for the reason that the mechanical meter of the complainant was showing doubtfully sluggish recording. The opposite party says that hence a test load was applied to be mechanical meter installed and checked and verified and it was found that the meter was running sluggishly and the actual consumed energy was not recorded correctly. On 30.03.2005 the mechanical meter was replaced with electronic one and it was noticed that the reading recorded in the electronic power meter actually rose to more than double. So it was cleared that the mechanical meter was running sluggishly and due to the inadequate recording of the consumed energy of the mechanical meter the KS E Board has sustained huge financial loss<br /> <br /> The opposite party submits that they issued a bill to the complainant for the period of 6 months amounting to a sum of Rs.52,376/- and states that the short assessment bill was not a penal bill, on the other hand it is the correct <br /> - 4 -<br /> bill for the correct amount of energy actually consumed by the complainant and the opposite party says that it is his duty bound under the statute to collect the revenue loss sustained to the K S E Board.<br /> <br /> In the allegation of the opposite party the electrical energy supplied to the complainant on the basis of an continuing agreement and a running account. Hence at any point of time the K S E Board is empowered to raise bills, short assessment bills or any other dues that a consumer is liable to remit to the Board. The opposite party says that there is illegality or irregularity in this case and is not liable for any of the false and unsustainable claims of the complainant.<br /> <br /> The opposite party prays before this forum to uphold the contentions of the complainant and to dismiss the complaint with costs.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents which was marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. Opposite party also filed proof affidavits Ext B1 & B2..<br /> <br /> Heard both parties.<br /> <br /> We have perused the Affidavits as well as documents produced before the Forum. <br /> <br /> It is evident from Ext.A1 that the opposite party had issued a bill for Rs.52,376/- to the complainant for the consumption prior to April 2005 and from March 2005 to October 2005. The opposite party argued that the calculation was made only on an aver5age consumption prior to and after the <br /> - 5 -<br /> change of the new meter. The opposite party in his version and affidavit <br /> submitted that the power meter of the consumer No.9655, which is the connection of the complainant coming under commercial Tariff LT VII A, the mechanical power meter was to be changed with electronic meter for the reason that the mechanical meter was showing doubtful sluggish recording. Hence a test load was applied to the said meter and it was found that the meter was running sluggishly and the actual consumed energy was not being recorded correctly. Accordingly mechanical meter was replaced with electronic one on 30.03.05. Thereafter it was noticed that the reading recorded actually rose to more than double.<br /> <br /> Hence it was beyond doubt that the mechanical meter was running sluggishly. The Bill marked as Exbt A1 was issued as per the provision contained in Regulation 35 of “Regulations Relates to conditions of supply of Electrical Energy”. There is no illegality or irregularity in issuing of Exbt A1.<br /> <br /> From the above context, we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs. <br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of July 2007.<br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> <br /> <br /> - 6 -<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant<br /> Ext.A1 - Bill issued by opposite party No.1 , Bill No. 131460<br /> for Rs.52,376/- dt. 12.05.05<br /> Ext. A2 – Letter issued by complainant to opposite party (Photocopy) dated <br /> 22.05.06.<br /> Ext. A3 - Letter issued by opposite party to complainant dated 28.06.06<br /> <br /> Ext . A4 - Demand Notice issued by opposite party to complainant dated<br /> 21.07.06<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party<br /> Ext. B1 - Extract of meter reading register<br /> <br /> Ext. B2 - Extract of calculation register<br /> <br /> Costs<br /> Not allowed<br /> Forwarded/By Order<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent