Date of filing : 31-10-2009
Date of order : 27-01-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
C.C.242/2009
Dated this, the 27th day of January 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Shivadas Kandathil,
S/o. Chirammal Raghavan Master,
R/at Pathila Kandam, Po. Nileshwar, } Complainant
Kasaragod.Dt. represented by his Power of
Attorney Holder Mr. Lakshmi Narayana Prabhu,
S/o. Late N.N. Prabhu, R/at Thattachery,
Po. Nileshwar, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv. Kumaran Nair, Kasaragod)
1. The Assistant Engineer, } Opposite parties
K.S.E.B, Nileshwar, Po. Nileshwar,
Kasaragod.Dt.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
K.S.E.B, Nileshwar, Po. Nileshwar,
Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv. P.Raghavan, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is that due to the defect (creeping) of the electricity meter kept in his building premises he has been served with electricity bills for exorbitant amounts. According to him the room, in which the electricity consumer number 6696030526 was provided was let to M/s Reliance Insurance Company Limited for housing their office as per the lease agreement dated 25-6-2008. The said office started functioning in October 2008 and the tenancy was terminated on 16-04-2009. During the tenancy period on 20-12-2008 opposite party No.1 issued a bill for `29884/- and on 17-4-2009 a bill for `30527/-. Though a parallel meter is installed on the basis of objection filed by the complainant no defect is identified. After the tenant vacated the room as suggested by opposite party No.1 complainant brought a new separate meter and further verified the existing meter. At that time it is seen that the existing meter was running fastly. But instead of reassessing the bill another exorbitant bill dated 12-06-2009 for `89110/- is issued. Therefore the complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties with a prayer to set aside the above 3 bills and for compensation and costs.
2. According to opposite parties the bill is issued basing on the meter recording of a correctly functioning meter and the bills are for the actual consumption. Hence the bills are not liable to be quashed and complainant is liable to pay the amount. The meter kept in the premises can again be tested by sending to the higher authority.
3. Relying on the version of the opposite parties complainant initiated steps to send the disputed meter to the Meter Testings and Standard Laboratory through the Electrical Inspector of Kasaragod.
4. The Electrical Inspector has filed his report. Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant thereafter filed affidavit in lieu of examination in-chief and faced cross-examination by the counsel for opposite parties. Exts. A1 to A7 is marked on the side of complainant. The report filed by the Electrical Inspector is marked as Ext.X-1. On the side of opposite parties Exts B1 to B5 marked. Both sides heard and documents perused.
5. In Ext.A1 is the bill dated 20-12-2008 for `29884/-. Ext.A2 is the receipt for the payment of Ext.A1 bill. Ext.A3 is the bill dated 17-04-2009 for `30527/-. Ext. A4 is the copy of the objection filed by the complainant before opposite parties. Ext.A5 is the bill dated 17-06-2009 for `89110/-. Ext.A6 is the details of connected load given to the building. Ext.A7 is the bill dated 15-06-2010 for `808/-.
6. According to learned counsel for the complainant the connected loan provided to the building is only 1140 Watts and therefore there is no reason for causing such an enormous amounts bills. According to him the meter is running defective since it is creeping. But we are unable to accept his argument in view of the Ext.X-1 report submitted by the Electrical Inspector Kasaragod. From Ex-1 report it is clear that the error in the energy meter is within the permissible limits.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SDO, Electricity & Another V B.S.LOBANA reported in IV (2005) CPJ 32 (SC) has held that instead of approaching the District Consumer Forum the party should have moved an application before the Electrical Inspector.
8. From the above decision it is clear that the authority to decide the correctness of an electricity meter is the Electrical Inspector and not the Consumer Forum. In this case the Electrical Inspector has already filed his report as per that the error to the energy meter is within the permissible limits if that be so we are helpless to take a contrary view and therefore we hold that the consumer is liable to pay the amounts mentioned in the bills impugned.
Therefore the complaint fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that if the complainant opt to pay the amount involved in the impugned bills within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order then no surcharge shall be recovered from him.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Bill issued to the complainant.
A2. Receipt amounting 30299/- issued to complainant.
A3. Bill issued to the complainant
A4. 04-06-09 copy of complaint given to OP No.2.
A5.Bill issued by OP.
A6. Sketch prepared by the licensed Electrical Contractor in respect of connected load
A7. Bill issued to complainant.
B1. Photocopy of meter testing register
B2 to B5 copy of bills
Ext. X-1. Meter testing report 11-3-2010.
PW1. N.Lakshmi Narayana Prabhu.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER
PRESIDENT
Pj/
Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
