DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.12/2009
Anitha, W/o.Suraj Pillai, Souparnika, Vandana Layout, Puthur, Palakkad – 1. - Complainant (Party in person)
Vs
The Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Kalpathy Section, Palakkad. - Opposite party (By Adv.L.Namassivayan)
O R D E R
By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
The case of the complainant is that she is a consumer of the opposite party and the consumer No. is 65310 10881. Her meter was out of order since August 2008 and therefore correct electricity bills were not being sent to her. On 05/07/2008 an electronic meter was installed at her residence, replacing the conventional meter. The billing cycle is bimonthly. Upon installation of electronic meter on 05/07/08, as against a consumption of 5.58 unit a day vide bill dated 23/05/08 based on conventional electricity meter reading there found to be a sudden spurt in the daily consumption as noted below: At 7.73 units/day vide bill dtd.22/07/08 At 8.83 units/day vide bill dtd.23/09/08 At 7.30 units/day vide bill dtd.20/11/08
Therefore she requested the opposite party to connect the conventional meter and the electronic meter in series for a specified period to make sure both the above meters
show the same reading. Opposite party connected two electronic meter and conventional meter in series and the reading taken by the opposite party shows a variation of 0.24 unit a day was noticed, as against the reply furnished by opposite party's letter dtd.08/10/08 that there was no fault with the metre. Thereafter a final letter was served, on opposite party, to remedy the situation which has not been responded so far. Complainant further stated that her aged parents lived in the house and used only minimum energy. In the circumstances the complainant requested that the average daily consumption is to be accepted as 5.38 units and refund to be ordered for the excess energy noted in the following bills.
Energy consumption for the billing period of 22/07/08 is 129 units and the amount is Rs.285.1/- Energy consumption for the billing period of 23/09/08 is 174 units and the amount is Rs.509.4/- Energy consumption for the billing period of 22/11/08 is 103 units and the amount is Rs.345.05/-
Hence the complainant requested excess amount of Rs.1139.55/- and exemplary damage of Rs.2000/- ordered to be refunded and the direction be given to the opposite party to prepare future bills in the light of the above observation.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. Opposite party denied all facts stated in the complaint. The opposite party stated that the average units noted in 2007 January is 426 units, March – 406 units, May – 428 units, July – 354 units, September – 289 units and November – 361 units. In 2008 the average unit noted in January 211 unit, and March – 335 unit. It was admitted that the opposite party's meter was out of order from March 2008. According to the opposite party the average units of consumption in the previous months are calculated and issued the electricity bills in March and July. The defective meter was replaced on 05/07/08. Due to the allegation of the complainant, the opposite party installed a reference parallel meter on 29/09/08. On verification, the electronic meter shows 34.1 unit of electricity and the reading in reference parallel meter shows 35.2 unit for 5 days. Therefore showed a variation of 1.2 units for 5 days. The opposite party admitted the reading taken in the reference parallel meter and electronic meter. On 18/10/08, the opposite party sent a reply notice to the complainant stating that
there was no fault in the meter installed in the premises. Further the opposite party stated that the complainant is bound to pay the electricity charge shown in the meter reading. The electronic meter is installed to the premises of the complainant as per the Acts and Rules of K.S.EB. Upon the installation of parallel meter the average units of consumption of electricity is more than 11 units per day. The mahazar is signed by the complainant. Therefore the opposite party prays that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party filed affidavit and documents. Ext.B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite party. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are; Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2: We perused relevant documents on record. The complainant stated that electronic meter was installed on 05/07/08 and thereafter there was a sudden spurt in consumption recording in the electronic meter. Ext.B3 is the meter readings of the complainant from January 2007 to January 2009. In Ext.B3 there was no variation after July 2008. The complainant stated that only her aged parents lived in the house and used only minimum of energy. The complainant has not produced evidence to show that they used minimum energy. As per Ext.B1 the meter reading shown in reference parallel meter is 35.3 unit and consumer meter is 34.1. Therefore two meter shows different units of electricity consumed. Ext.B1 is admitted by the opposite party. Thereafter the opposite party sent Ext.B2, stating that there is no fault in the meter installed in complainant's premises. Electronic meter and reference parallel meter shows different meter reading. But the opposite party stated that there is no fault with the meter. Opposite party has not produced any document showing what is the permissible limit of error. In view of the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result, complaint allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. The
decree amount shall be adjusted in the future bills.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2010 Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Appendix Witnesses examined on the side of complainant Nil Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Bill dtd.23.05.08 Ext.A2 - Bill dtd.22.07.08 Ext.A3 - Bill dtd.23.09.08 Ext.A4 - Bill dtd.20.11.08 Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Ext.B1 – Photo copy of mahazar Ext.B2 – Photo copy of letter sent by opposite party to complainant Ext.B3 – Abstract of meter reading for the period from 01/2007 to 01/2009 Cost (Allowed) Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings | 
