By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the unauthorised and excess bill amount demanded from the Complainant and for an order that the Complainant is not entitled to pay the meter rent and for interest of the amount deposited for connection.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a consumer of electricity No.10928 from Meenangady, KSEB. The Complainant filed an earlier complaint No.CC 29/05 and it was dismissed. The meter installed in the premises of the Complainant is faulty and this Complainant had given applications to the concerned officials but it was unresponded by the Assistant Engineer and Deputy Chief Engineer. The dismantled connection was later reconnected on 26.09.2008 however the consumer was charged heavily for the unused energy due to the faulty meter. The Complainant was not in consumption of electricity energy after re-connection of the connection but the meter recorded erroneous consumption of energy. The Complainant was demanded to pay Rs.4,738/- towards the consumption of energy and other charges. The price of the meter is only Rs.300/- how ever the Opposite Party demanded Rs.790/- as the meter rent. The wire used for service connection was charged by the Opposite Party though the amount of Rs.250/- was deposited by the Complainant for availing the electricity connection.
3. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to cancel the unauthorised
bill amount and the deposited amount to be adjusted to meter rent and other charges. The fixed charge demanded in the bills issued to the Complainant is to be delated. There may be an order directing the Opposite party to collect electricity charges from 9.05.2008 onwards.
4. The Opposite Party filed version it is in short as follows:- The Complainant was given a service connection in VII A tariff abide by the Order of this fora. The Opposite Party revised the electricity bill amount. The connection was disconnected for the non payment of the bill amount. The consumer is legally bound to pay the minimum charges during the period of this connection. Under the pretext of this complaint the Complainant is not paying any amount though bills were issued regularly.
5. The door of the premises found locked always the meter reader could not take accurate meter reading since door was locked. In 2008 February it was noted that the consumption was 2 unit. The consumption of electricity slowly increased and in May 2011 it reached 31 unit after June 2010 there was no consumption. The earlier consumption is found as 31 units. The Complainant is legally bound to pay electricity bill amount including meter rent fixed charges which are as low. The meter rent cannot be exempted for this complainant since it is governed by the provisions. There is Rs.4,837/- due from the Complainant as on June 2011 along with interest and other charges. The deposited amount of Rs.250/- already deducted. The allegation of the Complainant is that the meter is faulty which lead to the erroneous recording of energy consumption and it has no basis. The connection was dismantled on 24.05.2011. The amount due from the Complainant is on the way of recovery by revenue recovery proceedings against the Complainant. To keep him in safe side from revenue recovery proceedings for the time being this complaint is filed. The complainant is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
6. Points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
Relief and cost.
7. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Parties Exts.A1 to A11 are the documents produced by the complainant. The oral evidence of the Complainant and Opposite Party is also rendered in this case.
8. The Complainant’s case is that the bill amount demanded by the Opposite Party is based on invalid meter recording. The Opposite Party is not entitled to collect from the complainant rent for the meter. The deposit in security by the Complainant is to be deducted from other charges as demanded in the bill. Exts.A1 to A8 are the bills issued to the Complainant from 10.10.2008 to 15.06.2010. The bill issued in different times by the Opposite Party consists of the fixed charges energy charge and meter rent. The Complainant affirmed that the amount demanded vide bills issued by the Opposite Party is not remitted by the Complainant Rs.4,338/- is demanded to be paid by the Complainant till 07.06.2011. Ext.A11 is the arrear notice issued to the Complainant dated 01.06.2011. The Complainant admitted that the fixed charge and other charges legally liable by the Complainant ready to be remitted. According to the Complainant he is not bound legally to pay the meter rent. The service wire used for the supply of electricity and the meter are to be given back to the Complainant. The Complainant has not evidenced that the meter installed in the premises is purchased by him and the unit recorded in the defective meter is not liable to be remitted by him. The allegation of the Complainant that the request of him to replace the defective meter with a new one in working condition is not brought out in evidence. Nothing is on record to establish his contention of that he has given written request to the Opposite Party for the exchange of the defective meter. The another contention of the Complainant is that is legally bound to get back the meter charges already collected. Section 7(1) of the regulation of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 reads “Subject to the conditions under clause 8, the Commission authorises the Licensee under Section 46 of the Act, to recover from the owner or occupier of any premises requiring supply the expenses reasonably incurred by the Licensee for providing any electric line or electrical plant required specifically for the purpose of giving such supply”. The regulation 7(4) reads “the Licensee shall not include the cost of meter while preparing the cost estimates under clause 7(1). The Licensee may provide the meter to the consumer and require to give him security for the price of the meter and enter into an agreement for the hire thereof, unless the consumer elects to purchase a meter”.
9. The Complainant has no case that the meter is purchased by him. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1 on examination he deposed that the Complainant has not paid the arrear bill amount. The Opposite Parties demand of the final arrear bill amount cannot be considered as a deficiency in service as per the provisions of the Act. The Complainant is not entitled to get back the meter taken away by the Opposite Party..
In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29th February 2012.
Date of filing:14.06.2011.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N X I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Varghese Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1 Dwipin Das Asst. Engineer, KSEB, i/c AXE.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt:10.10.2008.
A2. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt:09.12.2008.
A3. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt:10.08.2009.
A4. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt:08.10.2009.
A5. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt:08.12.2009.
A6. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt:09.02.2010.
A7. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt:12.04.2010.
A8. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt:08.06.2010.
A9. Copy of Application.
A10. Copy of Application. dt:05.09.2009.
A11. Final Arrear Notice. dt:01.06.2011.
Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
