SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is a complaint seeking to quash the addition bill issued by the opp.parties. The Averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is running an Industry. He is a consumer of the opp.party with a consumer No15543. He is remitting electricity charges regularly and not a defaulter. While so, even though there was no fault to the electric meter installed in his premises on 13.5.2004 the same was changed with an electronic meter and he was issued with an additional bill on 26.9.2005 for Rs.8105/-. The amount claimed in the above bill is not due from the complainant. The issuance of the above bill is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the complaint. Opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is running an industry at Thevalakkara and a consumer under the LT IV tariff with a connected load of 44 KW The complainant being an Industrial tariff consumer does not come under the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The Anti Power Theft Squad of Kerala State Electricity Board had inspected the premises of the above consumer and directed the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Thevalakkara on 6.5.2004 as per letter NO. APTS/TVPM/04-05/6.5.2004 to replace the meter with a static meter and re assess the consumer after observing the future consumption. Hence the meter installed in the premises of consumer No.15543 was changed on 13.5.2004. On watching the future consumption for 6 months after changing the meter, the average consumption was found to be 2252 units per month. The average consumption of the consumer before the meter change was 1868 units per month. Hence the consumer was back assessed for Rs.8105/- The above bill is issued as per the existing tariff rules. The opp.party has acted only as per law and as per the rules in force. The bill was prepared and served only as per rules 31[c] of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy,. The opp.party is at liberty to charge its energy cost once if supplied to the consumer. There is no deficiency in service. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: For the complainant PW.1 is examined. P1 to P3 are marked. For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked. Points: The complainant is challenging Ext.P2 additional bill on the ground that the same was issued arbitrarily and unlawfully. According to the complainant the mechancial electric meter installed in his premises had no fault and the meter reader was regularly taking meter reading and issuing bills till the same was replaced by an electronic meter. The case of the opp.party is that the Anti Power Theft Squad had inspected the premises of the complainant on 6.5.2004 and directed the Asst. Engineer Thevalakkara as per letter No.APTS/T VPM/04-05/6.5.2004 to replace the meter with a static meter and reassess the consumer after observing future consumption and it is after that Ext.P2 was issued. It is to be pointed out that the reason for changing the electric meter in the premises of the complaint is not forthcoming. The opp.parties have no case that the complainant has committed theft of electricity or tampered the metre. The alleged letter of the APTS is not produced for reason best known to the opp.party. None of the persons who inspected the premises is also examined. Copy of meter reading register referred to in para 4 of the affidavit is also not produced DW.1 has also not given any satisfactory explanation for not producing the above records or changing the meter. In the absence of cogent materials it cannot be said that the mechanical electric metre installed in the premises of the complainant had any fault. The competent person to swear these aspects is the members of the APTS team who visited the premises on 6.5.2004 and their non examination raises doubts. In these circumstances the contention of the complaint that his meter has no fault till the same is replaced with an electronic meter has to be accepted. Now the question is whether the opp.parties are justified in issuing additional bill after changing the mechanical meter and watching the reading of the electronic meter or not ? In the version filed by the opp.parties it is stated in para 3 that Ext.P2 bill was prepared and served under Rule 3 [c] of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Clause 31 [c] reads as follows: “In the event of any meter being found incorrect[which includes meter ceasing to record, running fast or slow, creeping or running in reverse, direction] and where the actual errors in reading cannot be ascertained, the meter will be declared faulty and the correct quantity of energy shall be determined by taking the average consumption for the previous three months, due regard being paid to the conditions of working, occupancy etc. If the average consumption for the previous three months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason, the correct consumption will be determined based on the average consumption for the succeeding three months. Where any difference or dispute arises as to the correctness of the meter, the matter shall be decided upon by the Electrical Inspector to Government upon the application of either the Board or the consumer. During such periods the consumer will be charged only the meter minimum. After determining the correct consumption due billing will be made and necessary adjustment made in the next invoice issued. Clause 31[c] clearly innumerable the contingencies in which additional bills can be prepared and issued. The additional charges can be claimed only when the meter installed in the premises had any fault or defect or when there is tampering the same by the consumer. The complainant also must be informed of the same. In this case as pointed out earlier there is not even a scrap of paper to show that the existing meter had any defect and the same has been informed to the consumer. The opp.parties had every right to substitute an existing mechanical meter with an electronic meter. They have also every right to issue an additional bill if it is established that the existing meter had any fault or imperfection or the consumer committed any theft of electricity or tampered with the same. But the opp.parties have no right to back assess the consumer and issue a revised bill for current charges on the basis of the reading recorded by the electronic meter subsequently for the period for which current charges has been paid on the basis of the reading recorded by the mechanical meter. The conduct of the opp.parties in back assessing a consumer who paid current charges on the basis of the reading of a mechanical meter which is not a faulty one and realizing additional charges on the basis of the average reading recorded by the substituted electronic meter for 6 months is against the provisions of clause 31[c] of the Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy and the same is deficiency in service. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed, quashing Ext. P2 additional bill and directing the opp.parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 31st day of January, 2009. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN : Sd/- ADV. RAVI SUSHA : Sd/- R. VIJAYAKUMAR : Sd/- Forwarded/by Order, SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is a complaint seeking to quash the addition bill issued by the opp.parties. The Averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is running an Industry. He is a consumer of the opp.party with a consumer No15543. He is remitting electricity charges regularly and not a defaulter. While so, even though there was no fault to the electric meter installed in his premises on 13.5.2004 the same was changed with an electronic meter and he was issued with an additional bill on 26.9.2005 for Rs.8105/-. The amount claimed in the above bill is not due from the complainant. The issuance of the above bill is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the complaint. Opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is running an industry at Thevalakkara and a consumer under the LT IV tariff with a connected load of 44 KW The complainant being an Industrial tariff consumer does not come under the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The Anti Power Theft Squad of Kerala State Electricity Board had inspected the premises of the above consumer and directed the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Thevalakkara on 6.5.2004 as per letter NO. APTS/TVPM/04-05/6.5.2004 to replace the meter with a static meter and re assess the consumer after observing the future consumption. Hence the meter installed in the premises of consumer No.15543 was changed on 13.5.2004. On watching the future consumption for 6 months after changing the meter, the average consumption was found to be 2252 units per month. The average consumption of the consumer before the meter change was 1868 units per month. Hence the consumer was back assessed for Rs.8105/- The above bill is issued as per the existing tariff rules. The opp.party has acted only as per law and as per the rules in force. The bill was prepared and served only as per rules 31[c] of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy,. The opp.party is at liberty to charge its energy cost once if supplied to the consumer. There is no deficiency in service. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: For the complainant PW.1 is examined. P1 to P3 are marked. For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked. Points: The complainant is challenging Ext.P2 additional bill on the ground that the same was issued arbitrarily and unlawfully. According to the complainant the mechancial electric meter installed in his premises had no fault and the meter reader was regularly taking meter reading and issuing bills till the same was replaced by an electronic meter. The case of the opp.party is that the Anti Power Theft Squad had inspected the premises of the complainant on 6.5.2004 and directed the Asst. Engineer Thevalakkara as per letter No.APTS/T VPM/04-05/6.5.2004 to replace the meter with a static meter and reassess the consumer after observing future consumption and it is after that Ext.P2 was issued. It is to be pointed out that the reason for changing the electric meter in the premises of the complaint is not forthcoming. The opp.parties have no case that the complainant has committed theft of electricity or tampered the metre. The alleged letter of the APTS is not produced for reason best known to the opp.party. None of the persons who inspected the premises is also examined. Copy of meter reading register referred to in para 4 of the affidavit is also not produced DW.1 has also not given any satisfactory explanation for not producing the above records or changing the meter. In the absence of cogent materials it cannot be said that the mechanical electric metre installed in the premises of the complainant had any fault. The competent person to swear these aspects is the members of the APTS team who visited the premises on 6.5.2004 and their non examination raises doubts. In these circumstances the contention of the complaint that his meter has no fault till the same is replaced with an electronic meter has to be accepted. Now the question is whether the opp.parties are justified in issuing additional bill after changing the mechanical meter and watching the reading of the electronic meter or not ? In the version filed by the opp.parties it is stated in para 3 that Ext.P2 bill was prepared and served under Rule 3 [c] of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Clause 31 [c] reads as follows: “In the event of any meter being found incorrect[which includes meter ceasing to record, running fast or slow, creeping or running in reverse, direction] and where the actual errors in reading cannot be ascertained, the meter will be declared faulty and the correct quantity of energy shall be determined by taking the average consumption for the previous three months, due regard being paid to the conditions of working, occupancy etc. If the average consumption for the previous three months cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason, the correct consumption will be determined based on the average consumption for the succeeding three months. Where any difference or dispute arises as to the correctness of the meter, the matter shall be decided upon by the Electrical Inspector to Government upon the application of either the Board or the consumer. During such periods the consumer will be charged only the meter minimum. After determining the correct consumption due billing will be made and necessary adjustment made in the next invoice issued. Clause 31[c] clearly innumerable the contingencies in which additional bills can be prepared and issued. The additional charges can be claimed only when the meter installed in the premises had any fault or defect or when there is tampering the same by the consumer. The complainant also must be informed of the same. In this case as pointed out earlier there is not even a scrap of paper to show that the existing meter had any defect and the same has been informed to the consumer. The opp.parties had every right to substitute an existing mechanical meter with an electronic meter. They have also every right to issue an additional bill if it is established that the existing meter had any fault or imperfection or the consumer committed any theft of electricity or tampered with the same. But the opp.parties have no right to back assess the consumer and issue a revised bill for current charges on the basis of the reading recorded by the electronic meter subsequently for the period for which current charges has been paid on the basis of the reading recorded by the mechanical meter. The conduct of the opp.parties in back assessing a consumer who paid current charges on the basis of the reading of a mechanical meter which is not a faulty one and realizing additional charges on the basis of the average reading recorded by the substituted electronic meter for 6 months is against the provisions of clause 31[c] of the Condition of Supply of Electrical Energy and the same is deficiency in service. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed, quashing Ext. P2 additional bill and directing the opp.parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 31st day of January, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – P.P. Jose List of witnesses for the complainant P1. – Bill dated 15.9.2005 P2. – Disputed bill dated 26.9.2005. List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. - K. Abdul Latheef List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Bill dated 26.9.2005
......................RAVI SUSHA : Member
......................VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member | | 
