DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
CC.No.14/2009
N.Padmini, 'Padmasree', Kinavallur.P.O, Parli, Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.P.A.Velayudhan)
Vs
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, K.S.E.Board, Parli.
2. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum. - Opposite parties (By Adv.L.Namassivayan for opposite parties)
O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
In short the case of the complainant is as follows: Complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.5008 of Parli Section. Complainant received a bill dt.22/11/2008 from opposite parties wherein meter reading was shown as 720 units. According to complainant actual meter reading was only 327 units. A complaint was sent on 24/11/2008 for revising the bill as well as stating that the meter was defective and requesting to install a new one. No reply was received from opposite parties. Opposite parties on 31/07/2008 severed the electricity connection. Thereafter complainant remitted the bill under protest. Another complaint was filed on 02/01/2009 requesting to install a new meter and refund excess charges levied. Meter was changed and a new meter was installed on 14/01/2009. Thereafter reading was taken on
02/01/2009. Consumption was only 36 units for the period 14/01/2009 to 20/01/2009. Complainant thereafter contacted the opposite party and requested to issue bill as per her average consumption per day as 6 units. It is submitted that the opposite party agreed to take average consumption after installation of the meter and to refund the excess charges if any. But surprisingly complainant received another bill dt.20/01/2009 for Rs.3,507/- directing to remit the amount by 27/01/2009 without fine or 11/02/2009 to avoid disconnection. Complainant sent two letters dt.22/01/2009 and 29/01/2009 pointing out that the amount claimed as per the bill is not correct. But opposite party has sent a demand notice dt.31/01/2009 asking the complainant to remit the amount before the date of disconnection. Complainant submits that the amount of Rs.3,507/- claimed is highly excessive and incorrect and is disproportionate to the actual electricity consumption. Complainant submits that opposite party should have taken 6 units per day for issuing the bill. Complainant prays to direct the opposite party to withdraw the bill dt.20/01/2009 for Rs.3,507/- issue a revised bill and Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
Opposite parties filed version contending the following. That the connection given to opposite parties is a three phase connection having a connected load of 4740 watt. It comprises 42 lights, three plugs, 13 fans, three power plug, air conditioner etc. Opposite parties admit that the meter was functioning properly up to the month of September. It became faulty only in the month of September. It was noticed while taking reading in the month of October and reported to the authorities. Average was calculated as per rules and issued the bill. Opposite parties has laid down the previous monthly consumption of the complainant as follows: 23/07/2007 754 units 22/09/2007 754 units 22/11/2007 746 units
23/01/2008 744 units 24/03/2008 900 units 23/05/2008 954 units 23/07/2008 485 units 20/09/2008 724 units calculating the average as 720 units. Opposite parties has issued the bill dt.22/11/2008.
Opposite parties has submitted that faulty meter was replaced on 14/01/2009. The delay in replacing the same was due to the shortage of three phase meter. Bill was given on the basis of the reading after replacing the meter for 6 days and the average of the consumption of previous bimonthly periods. According to opposite parties all the bill is issued as per rules and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
The evidence adduced by both parties consists of their respective affidavits. Exts.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite parties.
The issues that arise for our consideration is that; Whether the bill dt.20/01/2009 is illegal? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, what the reliefs and cost complainant is entitled to?
Issues 1,2 & 3: We have gone through the entire evidence on record. Even though complainant has raised dispute with respect to two bills issued by the opposite parties, relief is sought with respect to the bill dt. 20/01/2009 alone.
The definite case of the complainant is that even though complainant has informed the opposite parties with respect to the faulty meter, opposite parties failed to replace it in time. Further the bill issued after replacement on the basis of previous consumption is not in accordance with the actual consumption.
Opposite parties on the other hand contented that delay in replacement of metre is because of the shortage of three phase meter. Further bill issued after replacement is as per rules.
On going through the rival submissions of both parties and the entire evidence on record, it is clear that there is a delay in replacement of the faulty meter. Complainant has repeatedly informed the opposite party regarding faulty meter by way of Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 letters dt.24/11/2008 and 2/01/2009 respectively. Opposite parties has admitted that the meter became faulty in the month of September and it was reported to the authorities in the month of October when noticed while taking reading. Admittedly meter was replaced on 14/01/2009.
Regulation 33 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 reads as follows: Regulation 33(1):- Meter reading will be taken by the employees or the persons authorised by the Board and record the same. Regulation 33(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.
Hence it is clear that Board has not replaced the meter within the time stipulated in the regulation. The reason of shortage of three phase meter is not substantiated by any evidence.
Bill dt.20/01/2009 issued after replacement of faulty meter is also said to be based upon 6 days meter reading after replacement and previous monthly consumption. Even though opposite party has stated the bimonthly previous consumption in the affidavit, it cannot be taken in evidence as the register showing the meter reading is not produced before us, especially in the case where the consumer disputes the consumption unit.
Complainant has submitted that opposite parties has informed the complainant that the excess amount if any in the bill dt.20/01/2009 will be adjusted after taking the subsequent readings. The said fact is clearly proved by Ext.A6 letter issued by opposite parties to the complainant. We are also of the view that opposite parties ought to have issued a bill based on the meter reading of the succeeding three months after replacement of meter as stated in Regulation 33(2) of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005.
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and order the following. Bill dt.20/01/2009 shall stand canceled. Opposite parties directed to issue a fresh bill based on the meter reading of succeeding three months after replacement of meter. Any amount already paid by the complainant shall be adjusted in the said bill. There shall be no order as to cost. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 6th day of July, 2010 Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
Appendix
Date of filing: 09/02/2009
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of request dt.24/11/08 submitted by complainant Ext.A2 (Series) - Photocopy of request dt.02/01/09 submitted by complainant, postal receipt and acknowledgement card
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of bill No.41058 dt.20/01/09 Ext.A4 (Series)– Photocopy of letter dt.22/01/09 sent by complainant to opposite party, courier receipt etc. Ext.A5 – Photocopy of letter dt.29/01/2009 sent by complainant to opposite party Ext.A6 – Letter dt.31/01/09 sent by opposite party to complainant
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties Ext.B1 – Photocopy of Service connection register
| | [HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K] Member[HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair] Member | | 
