By G. Yadunadhan, President: The case of the complainant is that the complainant is running flour mill at Muduvana, Payyoli. For this purpose he had taken electric connection from K.S.E.B. as a consumer No. 5885 under the Electrical Section Maniyur. On 15-2-08 complainant has received a demand notice for payment of Rs.4146/- towards back assessment due to the change of meter. Opposite parties have prepared the above mentioned bill alleging that the electric meter of the complainant was faulty and the faulty meter was changed on 26-4-07. The old meter which was a mechanical one was replaced by an electronic meter. The allegation of the opposite parties is that the increase in consumption shown in the new meter is due to the fault of the old meter. That allegation is without any basis. Complainant has installed a double chamber, double stage pulvarisor during May 2007. By installing the new machine there was no change in the connected load. On misconception the opposite parties have prepared the back assessment bill dated 15-2-08. Complainant had submitted a letter to the first opposite party on 28-2-08 showing all the relevant facts and requested for cancelling the back assessment bill. But the opposite parties without making a proper enquiry sent another letter No. BB/MNR/Inspection/RAO/07-08/197 dated 13-3-08 demanding the payment of Rs.4146/- immediately. Actually there was no fault in the old meter of the complainant. No proper inspection was conducted by the opposite parties to ascertain that there is defect in the replaced old meter. There is no justification on the part of the opposite parties. There is a clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant is not liable to pay Rs.4146/-. Therefore complainant seeking relief against .opposite parties to cancel the demand notice dated 21-2-08 and bill dated 15-2-08 and also pay compensation of Rs.10000/-. Opposite parties after serving notice entered appearance and filed their version. K.S.E.B. admits that it had issued an Invoice No. AN-86533 dated 15-2-08 to the consumer for Rs.4146/- which was the back assessment bill for faulty meter. The claim of the complainant that the meter was not faulty is incorrect. Mechanical meter in the consumer’s premises with No. 047445 ( 3 x 20A) was faulty and changed on 24-3-07 with FR 24043. It was replaced with new electronic meter with No.976165 ( 3 x 10-40A) IR-04 on the same day. The reading on the meter was 04 itself when the Sub Engineer of that Section visited the premises on 9-4-07 to record meter reading. On inspection it was found to be faulty and was changed on 26-4-07 with a new meter, being No.982901 ( 3 10-40A) and IR-6. The back assessment bill of 15-2-08 was prepared based on the meter change effected on 26-4-07. Subsequent reading and consumption Previous reading and consumption 6/07 -- 268 11/06 -- 68 7/07 -- 290 12/06 -- 94 8/07 -- 212 1/07 -- 108 9/07 -- 360 2/06 -- 99 1130/4 = Average 282.5 Units/month 3/07 -- 87 4/07 -- 63 519 units 282.5 x 6 months = 1695 units Short = 1695 = 1176 units Back Assessment CC = 1176 x 3.25 3822 Duty = 324 Rs. 4146/- Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed and direct the complainant to pay the amount as per demand notice. Points for consideration (1) whether any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation, if so what is the relief and cost? Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. Opposite party examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked. On a perusal of Ext.A1 document, the bill issued by the opposite party is a back assessment bill. Ext.A5 produced by the complainant while cross examined the complainant, he himself admitted that double chamber pulvarisor was installed. That was not intimated to the first opposite party. According to O.P.-1 the Section Officer visited the premises on 9-4-07 to record the meter reading. On inspection it was found to be faulty and was changed on 26-4-07. No documents to show that regarding the faulty meter opposite party intimated to the complainant on writing. The changing of the faulty meter was without the knowledge of the complainant. It is a clear deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Opposite party failed to convince the complainant that existing meter was faulty. Since the opposite party not complied minimum formalities before issuing the back assessment bill due to the faulty meter bill dated 15-2-08 is illegal. Therefore we are of the opinion that the petition is to be allowed and the opposite parties are directed to cancel the bill dated 15-2-08 and issue fresh bill after conducting the detailed enquiry regarding the faulty meter if necessary. Pronounced in the open court this the 19th day of July 2010. Date of filing :07.05.08 Sd/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1. Photocopy of Invoice dt. 15-2-2008. A2. Photocopy of letter dt. 21-2-2008 sent by O.P. to the complainant. A3. Photocopy of letter dt. 28-2-2008 sent by the complainant to O.P. A4. Photocopy of letter dt. 13-3-2008 sent by O.P. to the complainant. A5. Photocopy of quotation dt. 20-5-2007. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. B1. Photocopy of Meter card. B2. Photocopy of Meter card. Witness examined for the complainant: PW1. Balakrishnan (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party; RW1. Padmanabhan, Electrical Section, Maniyur, Vatakara. Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. By G. Yadunadhan, President: The case of the complainant is that the complainant is running flour mill at Muduvana, Payyoli. For this purpose he had taken electric connection from K.S.E.B. as a consumer No. 5885 under the Electrical Section Maniyur. On 15-2-08 complainant has received a demand notice for payment of Rs.4146/- towards back assessment due to the change of meter. Opposite parties have prepared the above mentioned bill alleging that the electric meter of the complainant was faulty and the faulty meter was changed on 26-4-07. The old meter which was a mechanical one was replaced by an electronic meter. The allegation of the opposite parties is that the increase in consumption shown in the new meter is due to the fault of the old meter. That allegation is without any basis. Complainant has installed a double chamber, double stage pulvarisor during May 2007. By installing the new machine there was no change in the connected load. On misconception the opposite parties have prepared the back assessment bill dated 15-2-08. Complainant had submitted a letter to the first opposite party on 28-2-08 showing all the relevant facts and requested for cancelling the back assessment bill. But the opposite parties without making a proper enquiry sent another letter No. BB/MNR/Inspection/RAO/07-08/197 dated 13-3-08 demanding the payment of Rs.4146/- immediately. Actually there was no fault in the old meter of the complainant. No proper inspection was conducted by the opposite parties to ascertain that there is defect in the replaced old meter. There is no justification on the part of the opposite parties. There is a clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant is not liable to pay Rs.4146/-. Therefore complainant seeking relief against .opposite parties to cancel the demand notice dated 21-2-08 and bill dated 15-2-08 and also pay compensation of Rs.10000/-. Opposite parties after serving notice entered appearance and filed their version. K.S.E.B. admits that it had issued an Invoice No. AN-86533 dated 15-2-08 to the consumer for Rs.4146/- which was the back assessment bill for faulty meter. The claim of the complainant that the meter was not faulty is incorrect. Mechanical meter in the consumer’s premises with No. 047445 ( 3 x 20A) was faulty and changed on 24-3-07 with FR 24043. It was replaced with new electronic meter with No.976165 ( 3 x 10-40A) IR-04 on the same day. The reading on the meter was 04 itself when the Sub Engineer of that Section visited the premises on 9-4-07 to record meter reading. On inspection it was found to be faulty and was changed on 26-4-07 with a new meter, being No.982901 ( 3 10-40A) and IR-6. The back assessment bill of 15-2-08 was prepared based on the meter change effected on 26-4-07. Subsequent reading and consumption Previous reading and consumption 6/07 -- 268 11/06 -- 68 7/07 -- 290 12/06 -- 94 8/07 -- 212 1/07 -- 108 9/07 -- 360 2/06 -- 99 1130/4 = Average 282.5 Units/month 3/07 -- 87 4/07 -- 63 519 units 282.5 x 6 months = 1695 units Short = 1695 = 1176 units Back Assessment CC = 1176 x 3.25 3822 Duty = 324 Rs. 4146/- Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed and direct the complainant to pay the amount as per demand notice. Points for consideration (1) whether any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation, if so what is the relief and cost? Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. Opposite party examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked. On a perusal of Ext.A1 document, the bill issued by the opposite party is a back assessment bill. Ext.A5 produced by the complainant while cross examined the complainant, he himself admitted that double chamber pulvarisor was installed. That was not intimated to the first opposite party. According to O.P.-1 the Section Officer visited the premises on 9-4-07 to record the meter reading. On inspection it was found to be faulty and was changed on 26-4-07. No documents to show that regarding the faulty meter opposite party intimated to the complainant on writing. The changing of the faulty meter was without the knowledge of the complainant. It is a clear deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Opposite party failed to convince the complainant that existing meter was faulty. Since the opposite party not complied minimum formalities before issuing the back assessment bill due to the faulty meter bill dated 15-2-08 is illegal. Therefore we are of the opinion that the petition is to be allowed and the opposite parties are directed to cancel the bill dated 15-2-08 and issue fresh bill after conducting the detailed enquiry regarding the faulty meter if necessary. Pronounced in the open court this the 19th day of July 2010. Date of filing :07.05.08 Sd/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1. Photocopy of Invoice dt. 15-2-2008. A2. Photocopy of letter dt. 21-2-2008 sent by O.P. to the complainant. A3. Photocopy of letter dt. 28-2-2008 sent by the complainant to O.P. A4. Photocopy of letter dt. 13-3-2008 sent by O.P. to the complainant. A5. Photocopy of quotation dt. 20-5-2007. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. B1. Photocopy of Meter card. B2. Photocopy of Meter card. Witness examined for the complainant: PW1. Balakrishnan (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party; RW1. Padmanabhan, Electrical Section, Maniyur, Vatakara. Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
| | [HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,] Member[HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,] Member | | 
