Date of filing : 11-12-2009 Date of order : 19-07-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 267/09 Dated this, the 19th day of July 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Dr.K.Sasidhara Rao, S/o.Late Balakrishna Rao, R/at “Rajathadri”, Kuzhavankunnu, } Complainant Ajanur Village, Hosdurg Taluk, Po.Ajanur, Kasaragod.Dt. (Adv.N.Rajamohanan, Hosdurg) 1. The Assistant engineer, K.S.E.B. } Opposite parties Mavungal Section Office, Mavungal, Po.Anandashram, Kasaragod.Dt. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Divisional Office, Hosdurg, Po.Kanhangad. (Adv. P.Raghavan, Kasaragod) 3. The Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B, Kanhangad, Po.Kanhangad. 671315 (Exparte) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Succinctly stated, the case of complainant is as follows: Complainant is a consumer under the jurisdiction of opposite parties. The Consumer No. is 7499-6. He is a categorized under tariff LT-1 A. From October 2008 onwards complainant was served with excessive and erratic bills. In September 2009 he was served with a bill for 33292/- rupees. Seeing the sudden spurt in the bill he requested opposite party No.1 to inspect the meter. On inspection the meter was found faulty and it was replaced on 26-09-2009. After the replacement the present meter reflects the actual consumption. Due to the fault in the meter complainant has to pay 1,03,732/- in excess than the actual amount payable by him. The complainant therefore prays for an order of refund of the said amount or the adjustment of the said amount towards his future bills. Apart from that opposite parties are threatening to disconnect the electricity supply for non-payment of bills dated 10-09-2009, 8-10-2009 and 11-11-2009. All the said bills are based on the reading of the faulty meter. Complainant is ready to pay the electricity charges on the basis of average consumption based on the meter reading recorded by the new meter from 26-09-2009 till a subsequent period of 6 months as per Reg.42 (3) of Kerala Electricity Supply code 2005. Therefore the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to declare the bill dated 10-09-2009, 8-10-2009 and 11-11-2009 as illegal and to refund an amount of 1,03,732/- rupees together with a compensation of 25,000/- rupees and a cost of 5,000/- rupees. 2. Eventhough Notice to opposite party No.3 served, he remained absent. Hence opposite party No.3 is set exparte. 3. According to opposite parties 1 & 2 the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was working. The consumption was varying from time to time. From 11/07 onwards the consumption is more than 1000 units per month. The meter was changed on 26-09-2009 in order to check whether the existing meter was faulty. The consumption for 6 days after meter change was 173 units. The previous bill was issued on 10-09-2009 for the period from 14-08-2009 to 10-09-2009 during these period consumption was 5782 units. The consumption during the period 10-09-2009 to 8-10-09 was 6548 units including the meter changed period. The amount in that bill was 37808/- rupees. The previous arrear was not cleared, that included in the bill dated 8-10-09 and claimed 71,100/- rupees. This amount was also not paid by the complainant. The succeeding bills are also pending. There was no complaint in the meter. Since the meter was working the opposite parties are not liable to revise the bills. The meter was changed as per the request of the complainant. The consumption is varying even after changing the meter. On the basis of low consumption in the recent bills one cannot say that the previous bills issued for the last one year is excessive and the opposite party is liable to re-imburse the amount. There is no such provision in the Electricity Act. As per Rule 42(3) of Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 if the meter is faulty reassessment can be taken on the basis of 6 months consumption either prior or succeeding to the changing of meter. But the meter is not faulty and there is no scope of reassessment of the bill. The consumer is liable to pay the amount claimed in the bills issued to him. The opposite parties are not liable to re-imburse any amount to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. The complainant produced Exts A1 to A32 in support of his claim. On the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 no documents produced. Both sides heard. Documents perused. 5. According to learned counsel for complainant Sri. Rajamohanan the mater installed in the premises of complainant was faulty since 10/2008 on wards. However the consumer lodged Ext.A1 complaint before 1st opposite party on 17-09-2009 alleging defect in the meter. In response to Ext.A1, opposite parties changed the meter on 26-09-2009. According to opposite parties the meter was changed in order to check whether the existing meter was faulty. But till date of posting the case for orders the opposite parties have not produced any report regarding the correctness of the meter replaced. This would leads the conclusion that the meter replaced from the premises of the complainant was faulty or that was the reason for substituting the meter as per Ext.A1 request. In this regard the contention of learned counsel for opposite parties Shri.P.Raghavan, that the meter is replaced not due to its incorrectness but because of consumer’s request does not hold good. Section 42(1) of KSEB Terms & Conditions of Supply 2004 envisages that on receipt of application of the consumer regarding the accuracy of meter, the Assistant Engineer, shall have the meter speciality tested by the Board or Electrical Inspector to the Government and where the meter is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as prescribed in the Indian Electricity Rules, the testing fee shall be refunded to the consumer and the consumer’s bill adjusted in accordance with the result of the test taken with respect to the meter reading of six months prior to the month in which the dispute has arisen due regard being paid to conditions of occupancy during the month. The faulty meter will be replaced by another one in good working order of the same will be repaired and installed. If the error is found to be within the limits allowed by the Indian Electricity Rules the testing fee shall be forfeited to the Board and the consumers bill shall be confirmed. 6. Evidently the opposite parties have violated the provisions prescribed in the regulation and the replaced meter is not subjected to any accuracy checking. 7. Now the issues to be settled are from which date onwards the meter is faculty and what is the quantum of actual energy consumed by the consumer during that period. 8. There is no dispute that the meter is replaced on 26-09-209. As per Reg.42(3) of KSEB Terms & Conditions of Supply 2005 if the existing meter is having found faculty is replaced with a new one, the consumption recorded during the period in which the meter was faulty shall be reassessed based on the average consumption for the previous six months. If it cannot be taken due to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reasons, the consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding six months after replacement of meter and excess claimed if any, shall be adjusted in the future current charge bills. 9. In this case the exact date on which the meter went faulty is unascertainable. However, the complainant has shown the meter readings from 1-10-2008 to 11-11-2009 that is as follows. Date of bills Consumption of Units 1-10-08 1828 17-11-08 1359 16-12-08 2555 16-01-09 1405 16-02-09 1124 16-03-09 1233 17-04-09 12548 17-07-09 2355 14-08-09 2529 10-09-09 5782 08-10-09 173 11-11-09 693 10. Complainant has produced Exts A27 to A32 the demand notices issued from 9-12-2009 to 6-5-10. The reading shown in the said demand notices are as follows. Date of bills Consumption. 9-12-2009 521 units 6-1-2010 491 units 5-2-2010 784 units (2662-1878) 5-3-2010 627 units 6-4-2010 1045 units 6-5-2010 1013 units 11. From the above meter reading it is clear that after replacement of meter the reading is considerably reduced. The opposite parties have no case that after replacing the meter the complainant has made any alteration in installation and connected load allotted to him so as to cause reduced consumption. 12. Therefore the case of the complainant that he has paid excess amount due to the erratic working of meter is well founded and he is entitled for the cancellation of bills dated 16-09-2009, 8-10-09,11-11-09 and the adjustment of the excess amount he already paid in his future bills. 13. In order to calculate the amount to be adjusted in future bills the rate per unit prevailing the relevant periods and the mode of assessment of demand notices are highly essential. But those are not placed before us. 14. As per Sec.42 (2) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 in the event of meter being found incorrect the amount of energy supplied to the consumer during the period shall be decided by the Electrical Inspector 15. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SDO Electricity & Others V. BS Lobana reported in (2005)6SCC 280 has held that the appropriate forum regarding the correctness of the meter is the electrical inspector and not the Consumer Forum. But in this case the opposite party has not send the meter for testing to the electrical inspector though they have replaced the meter for sending to electrical inspector and they thereby denied the opportunity of the complainant to receive the benefits that he would have obtained if the meter is declared faulty by the Electrical Inspector. Opposite parties thereby violated
Regn 42(1) of the KSEB Terms & conditions of Supply. 16. Therefore we have no other go except to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector to assess the amount paid by the complainant in excess if any relying an erroneously working meter readings. Hence the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to set aside the bills dated 10-09-2009, 8-10-2009 and 11-11-2009 issued to the consumer No.7499-6 of complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector to assess the amount of energy supplied to the consumer during the period 1-10-08 to 26-09-2009 and the amounts to be adjusted if any in his future bills. Opposite parties should give notice for payment of fee if any for referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector and complainant should remit that amount. Opposite parties shall also pay 3000/- rupees as cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance of this order is limited to 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which the opposite parties shall farther liable to pay 25,000/- rupees by way of compensation for the loss, hardships and mental agony suffered by the complainant. We make it clear that the payment of compensation will not absolve opposite parties liability to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.12-3-09 complaint sent by complainant to OP No.1. A2. Notice. A3. 25-10-08 Receipt. A4. Notice. A5.24-11-08 Receipt. A6. Notice. A7. 26-12-08 Receipt A8. Notice A9. 24-01-09 Receipt A10. Notice. A11.25-02-09 Receipt. A12. Notice. A13. 25-03-09 Receipt A14. Notice. A15.24-04-09 Receipt A16. Notice. A17. 22-05-09 Receipt A18. Notice. A19. 26-06-09 Receipt A.20. Notice. A.21. 25-07-09 Receipt. A22. Notice. A.23 26-08-09 Receipt. A.24. Notice. A.25. to A.32 Notices. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
