CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th February, 2015

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                     Date  of filing : 27/06/2014

CC /93/2014

Abdul Razack, S/o.Mohammed,

Manakkathodi House,

Amayur Post, Pattambi,

Palakkad District                                                      :        Complainant

(Consumer No.10404 of Koppam

Electrical Section)

(By Adv.R.Anand)  

                                                          Vs

The Assistant Engineer,                                             :        Opposite party

Electrical Section,

Pattambi Palakkad.    

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The complainant is a consumer bearing No.10404 of the opposite party.  He has been regularly paying the bills issued by the opposite party and he alleges that his average bill never exceeded more than Rs.1000/-.  The complainant’s house is only equipped with basic amenities and there are only two rooms used by the family members.  The complainant has never kept dues pending regarding payment of bills.  In the month of January 2014, the complainant reported to the opposite party that the meter installed was blinking  which would lead to over reading.

In the month of February, 2014 the staff of the opposite party came to the house of the complainant and issued bill dated 16/02/2014 for Rs.7,938/- bearing No.633741.  Complainant submits that it was shocking and against the facts and circumstances.  The complainant inorder to save his family deposited an initial amount of Rs.1,558/- before the opposite party from being disconnected with electric supply.  The complainant being aggrieved by the bill submitted a complaint before the opposite party for testing the meter.  On the basis of the complaint it is alleged that a report has been issued by EMR Division Shornur.  A complaint was submitted before the opposite party for reconsidering the bill issued on 16/02/2014.  The authorities without looking at the legalities and the average consumption of the complainant, confirmed the bill and the amount has been remitted by the complainant without prejudice to challenge before the Forum.  The complainant submits that the action of the opposite party has caused much mental agony and harm to the reputation of the complainant and his family.  Hence he had approached before the Forum seeking an order to declare the bill dtd.16/02/2014 for Rs.7,938/- as illegal and void and to direct the opposite party to pay back an amount of Rs.6,938/- with interest to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings.

The notice was served to the opposite party for appearance.  Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending the following.   The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court.  It states that “no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an Assessing Officer referred to in Section 126 or an Appellate Authority referred to in Section 127 of the Adjudicating Officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or Authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act”.  Hence this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, If at all, this complainant is aggrieved by any of the acts of the opposite party, the only remedy available for him is to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) of the Licensee under Section 111(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and to the Electricity Ombudsman, but not this Forum.

The opposite party admit that the complainant is a consumer under the electrical section, Koppam bearing Consumer No.10404.  The average bill of the consumer for the last one year is Rs.1,392/-.  A true copy of the meter reading register of the consumer No.10404 for the period from 15/10/2008 to 17/06/2014 was produced to show the above fact.  The statement of the complainant that he had reported in January 2014 about the complaint of blinking of the meter to the opposite party is perse wrong.  Mere blinking of the energy meter will never lead to over reading.  On 16/02/2014 on receiving bill No.633741 for Rs.7938/-, the complainant approached the opposite party that the bill served is high and hence the meter is to be checked and replaced, if found faulty on checking.  An Overseer of Electrical Sub Section, Koppam inspected the premises and check the meter installed by the licensee.  On physical inspection, no abnormality was noticed  and the meter was found to be working properly.  This information was conveyed to the consumer from the site itself.  But the working of the meter was challenged by the consumer.  The consumer remitted fees for challenging test of the meter.  This was accepted by the opposite party and the meter was dismantled for testing by installing a new energy meter to avoid any inconvenience of the consumer and for providing energy to the premises.  The meter was tested as per the guidelines specified in Regulation 115 of The Kerala Electric Supply Code, 2014 issued by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission.  The meter was tested at the meter testing Section of the TMR Division, Shornur it is a laboratory approved by the Electricity Regulatory Commission for testing and calibration of the energy meters.  The meter was checked with the standard reference meter and was found OK and the errors were within permissible limits.  If at all the consumer is aggrieved by the test results, he is at liberty to get it tested by any other accredited laboratory than that of the licensee.  Since the test result of the accredited laboratory revealed that meter is in good working condition, the bill serve to the complainant on 16/02/2014 is correct and justifiable.  The complainant is liable to pay for the consumed energy.  The above complaint is false, fictious and vexatious and it is only an experimental attempt on the side of the consumer to recover the amount lawfully collected from the complainant by the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost. 

Both parties filed chief affidavits. Complainant filed application seeking permission to cross examine the opposite party.  Opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext.A1-A8 was marked from the part of the complainant. Ext.B1-B5 was marked from the part of the opposite party.

Matter was heard.

The following issues are to be considered.

1.  Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the bill dtd.16/02/2014 bearing No.633741 can be acted upon?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUES 1 & 2

The opposite party contented that the above complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 145 of the Kerala Electricity Act of 2003 and u/s.111(1) of the Electricity Act of 2003.  On perusal of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is made clear that “the provisions of this act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”.  This Section makes it clear that complaint is maintainable before the Forum.  Issue No.1 is answered accordingly. 

In this case complainant was not cross examined by the opposite party regarding blinking of electric meter.  On perusal of the average bills produced by the complainant it can be seen that the bill amount varies between Rs.1000 – 1500.   Ext.A1 is the last challenged bill which according to the complainant is illegal.  The meter has to be tested as per the guidelines specified in regulation 115 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 issued by Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission

Section 115 Procedure for testing of meter

1. The meter shall normally be tested in the laboratory of the licenses approved by the Commission.
2. In case of the licensee does not have a testing facility approved by the commission, or it is desired by the consumer, the meter shall be tested at any  other laboratory accredited by the National Accreditation Board for testing and calibration Laboratories (NABL)
3. The list of the accredited laboratories and approved laboratories for testing of meters shall be made available on the website of the license.
4. In the case of testing on the request of the consumer be shall have to pay the testing fee as per the schedule of miscellaneous charges given in schedule 1 of the code:

Provided that if the meter is found to be recording incorrectly or defective or damaged due to technical reasons such as voltage fluctuation or transients attributable to the licensee, the testing fee shall be refunded to the consumer by the licensee by adjustment in the subsequent bill.

5. Before testing a meter of the consumer, the licensee shall give an advance notice of three days, intimating the date, time and place of testing  so that the consumer as his authorized representative can at his option, be present at the testing.
6. The testing shall be done within a maximum period of thirty days from the receipt of the application.
7. The consumer or his authorized representative and the representative of the licensee present during testing shall affix their signature on the test report issued by the authorized officer of the laboratory as a token of having witnessed the testing

On perusal of Ext.A8(B4) it can be seened that opposite party has not complied with Rule 115(5).  No advance notice regarding the intimation of the date, time and place of testing has been communicated to the complainant so that he could be present at the time of inspection.  When DW1 was examined  he had also admitted that  the complainant nor his representatives was present at the time of inspection.  There is no signature obtained from the complainant in the test report.  No date is mentioned in the test report. It could be further seen that in the coloumn No.1 there is no mention of the connected load more than that it could be further seen that “errors are within permissible limits”.  The Electricity Act has clearly stated that over reading for the meter can be due to voltage fluctuation of Transients attributable to the licensee.  On an examination of Ext.A8 (Test Report) it can  be inferred that the meter is not tested properly by the authority concerned.  In the absence of such a situation Ext.A8 bill dtd.16/02/2014 bearing No.633741 cannot be relied upon.  The opposite party ought to have given an opportunity to the complainant at the time of testing of the meter. Without doing so, they had committed deficiency of service on their part. Issue No.2 and 3 answered accordingly.

In the above circumstances we direct the opposite party to conduct further examination of the complainant’s meter as per the guidelines specified in Regulation 115 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 issued by Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission, after giving advance notice of 3 days, intimating the date, time and place of testing so that the complainant or his authorized representatives can at his option be present at the time of testing.  The testing shall be done within a maximum period 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Subject to the result of the test report, the complainant will be at liberty to recover the amount collected in excess from him by the opposite party  or the amount can be adjusted towards the further bills.  Considering the nature of the case the parties shall bear their respective cost.  Complaint is allowed partly as mentioned above.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th  day of February 2015.

                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                   Smt. Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                                        Smt. Suma. K.P

                                                                       Member

                                                A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Electricity Bill No.633741  dtd.16/02/2014  (Original)

Ext.A2- Electricity Bill No.453893  dtd.14/10/2012 (Original)

Ext.A3 - Electricity Bill No.433988  dtd.14/08/2012. (Original)

Ext.A4- Electricity Bill No.655084  dtd.17/04/2014. (Original)

Ext.A5- Electricity Bill No.707362  dtd.07/08/2014. (Original)

Ext.A6- Notice of OP dtd.09/06/2014.

Ext.A7- Electricity Bill No.677931  dtd.17/06/2014 (Original)

Ext.A8- Copy  Challenge Test Report Dt.17/02/2014

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1- True copy of the Meter Reading Register of Consumer No.10404 for the period from 15/10/2008 to 17/06/2014

Ext.B2- True copy of the Consumer Profile of Consumer No.10404 as on 25/07/2014

Ext.B3- True copy of the application dtd.16/02/2014 submitted by the complainant for testing the meter

Ext.B4-True copy of the Calibration Certificate of Energy Meter (Challenge Test Report) dtd.04/03/2014 issue by the T.M.R Division, Shornur

Ext.B5-Notice dtd.09/06/2014 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Koppam.

Witness marked on the side of complainant

Nil     

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1-Suresh.K.T

Cost Allowed

No cost allowed.