BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 361/2002

Dated: 15..03..2011

Complainant:

S. Venkitachalam, T.C.39/1773, Yamuna Nagar, Manacaud – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 9.

(By Adv. R. Padmanabha Pillai)

Opposite parties:

1. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Office (KSEB), Manacaud, Manacaud – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 4.

(By Adv. M. Manikantan)

This O.P having been heard on 28..01..2011, the Forum on 15..03..2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. 606 of Manacaud Section of Kerala State Elecricity Board, that on 17/12/2001 the staff of the opposite parties had arbitrarily removed the then existing meter provided for measuring his consumption, from his house and substituted another meter without giving any information to him, that the meter so substituted shows abnormal and exorbitant reading which have no nexus with the consumption for the immediate preceding 1 ½ years, and that the meter substituted is faulty one, that on 04/01/2002 complainant had sent a letter to the 1^st opposite party under certificate of posting, requesting for an inspection either to rectify the fault in the meter and to replace it by a properly working meter, that the 1^st opposite party did not pay heed to the said request, that again complainant sent another letter as reminder on 20/02/2002 to the 1^st opposite party, to which 1^st opposite party did not respond, that 1^st opposite party served a bill dated 15/03/2002 claiming Rs.522/- towards alleged consumption of 316 units for 57 days for the bi-month of January and February 2002 to the complainant, that complainant was compelled to pay the said bill as otherwise there is threat of disconnection on supply of electrical energy, that thereafter complainant sent a notice dated 22/03/2002 through his counsel to 1^st opposite party calling upon him to cancel the said bill, that opposite party sent reply dated 4/4/2002 stating that the Sub Engineer-in-charge of the area concerned had inspected the meter and had advised the complainant to remit the necessary application for arranging test of the meter, that complainant neither submitted application nor paid Rs.100/- as testing fee and Rs. 10/- as application fee, that the complainant again sent a letter on 22/05/2002 to 1^st opposite party stating that he is not liable to pay testing fee since the meter belongs to the Department for which the complainant is paying monthly rent and it was replaced not on the demand of the complainant, thereafter opposite parties did not pay heed to the said letter but issued bills on the basis of the reading of the said faulty meter, that complainant had no alternative than to pay the said two bills under protest. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to repair the existing meter or to replace the same by a meter free from any defect, to cancel the bills dated 22/3/2002, 20/5/2002 & 12/7/2002, to restrain the opposite parties from issuing further bills on the basis of the faulty meter and pay compensation and cost.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the allegation raised in the complaint are false, that the reading taken on 16/01/2001 showed a sudden fall in the consumption of energy by the complainant, that the meter was checked and found that there was sluggish and was not recording properly, that thereafter the meter was replaced on 17/01/2002, that there was no need for giving prior information to the consumer when a faulty meter is changed, that there is no defect in the new meter, the contention that the meter substituted is a faulty one is not true, that the allegation that no action was taken by the opposite parties with respect to the request made by the complainant on 04/01/2002 and on 20/02/2002 are not true, that the complainant was informed by the opposite party that he should remit Rs. 110/- as testing fee for sending the meter for testing at TMR Division, that bill was issued to the complainant as recorded by the new meter and complainant remitted bills without protest. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

    

1. Whether the meter provided in the complainant's premises is defective?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bills cancelled?

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and has marked Exts. P1 to P7. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed proof affidavit. Opposite party has not filed any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iv): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. 606 of Manacaud Section of Kerala State Elecricity Board. It has been the case of the complainant that on 17/12/2001 the staff of the opposite parties had arbitrarily removed the then existing meter provided for measuring his consumption, from his house and substituted another meter without giving any formalities envisaged under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, that the meter so substituted shows abnormal and exorbitant reading since its inception, that the readings have no nexus with the consumption for the immediate preceding 1 ½ years and that the meter substituted is faulty one. Complainant's evidence consists of oral testimony of the complainant and Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. P1 series are copies of bi-monthly bills dated from December 2000 to July 2002. On perusal of various bills, it is that meter in the premise was changed on 17/1/2002. Prior to the meter change, bi-monthly consumptions from 27/11/2000 to 16/1/2002 were: 154 units, 148 units, 200 units, 240 units, 247 units, 239 units, 205 units and 146 units. After the meter change, the bi-monthly consumptions registered were: 316 units, 308 units and 255 units. The case of the complainant is that the said readings have no nexus with the consumption for the immediate preceding years. Ext. P2 is the copy of letter addressed to 1^st opposite party by the complainant complaining that the newly installed meter is running fast. Ext. P3 is the copy of the certificate of posting. Ext. P4 is the copy of the Advocate notice dated 22/3/2002 issued by the complainant to 1^st opposite party. Ext. P5 is the copy of the reply issued to Ext. P4 by the 1^st opposite party, stating that the Sub Engineer in charge of that area inspected the meter and advised the consumer to remit Rs. 10/- as the application fee and testing fee of Rs. 100/- for arranging testing of the meter; that consumer had not submitted the application, nor remitted the fee till date. Exts. P6 & P7 are copies of letter and acknowledgement card addressed to 1^st opposite party by the complainant. It is the stance of the opposite parties that the reading taken on 16/1/2001 showed a sudden fall in the consumption of energy by the complainant, and hence the meter was checked and found that the meter was not taking the reading properly and thereafter the meter was replaced on 17/1/2002. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that there is no need for giving prior information to the consumer when faulty meter is changing. Further it is argued by the opposite parties that after installation of the new meter there was a slight increase in the reading than the old meter, and that was because the old meter was sluggish. Further as per the request of the complainant, opposite parties inspected the new meter and found that the new meter was not faulty. Complainant had remitted all the subsequent bills issued to him. It is further argued by the opposite parties that since the dispute about the accuracy of the new meter was raised by the complainant he should remit Rs.110/- for sending the meter for testing in the TMR Division. It is settled law that Electricity Board has power to replace the faulty meter by a new meter. Section 26 of the Electricity Act requires to maintain the correct meter. The Board is also bound to replace the meter. The case of the opposite parties is that the earlier meter installed at premises of the complainant was sluggish in operation and it was expected to be faulty. But it is pertinent to note that there was clear provisions under Electricity Act about the replacement of a faulty meter. Opposite parties did not produce any document to show whether the opposite parties have observed the required rules and regulations for replacing the faulty meter. Nowhere in the version is it stated that the old meter got tested by the Chief Electrical Inspector as per the Provisions of the Electricity Act. Before ascertaining the accuracy of the old meter opposite parties removed the said meter and replaced it with a new meter. A persual of Ext. P1 series would show that there has been discrepancy in the meter reading in the old and replaced meter and the meter shows a slight increase in the reading than the old meter. It has been laid down in Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act that the correctness of the meter can be certified by the Electrical Inspector on application by either party, the aforesaid Act mandates that in the event of meter being defective and giving incorrect reading the Electrical Inspector shall estimate the energy supplied to the consumer during the disputed period and even if meter is found to be incorrect or defective the consumer cannot be charged beyond 6 months of the disputed period. Since in this case the allegation is about the exorbitant bills after installation of the new meter it is associated with the working of the existing meter and already replaced meter. A dispute of this kind can be referred to Electrical Inspector. The opposite parties have not proved on the record that the old meter was sluggish and defective and that the authority has not got the old meter tested before the installation of the new meter. Opposite parties have no authority to declare the meter defective on its own and replace it by a new meter, such authority can be exercised only by the Chief Electrical Inspector. In this case the meter removed long back, hence not possible to refer to Chief Electrical Inspector and even if the said meter is readily available with opposite parties there is no guarantee that whether the said meter is in the same condition as it was on the date of removal. As regards the new meter complainant alleges that the new meter is faulty even after intimating by the opposite parties, complainant has not taken any steps to ascertain the accuracy of the new meter. Since the dispute about the accuracy of the new meter was raised by the complainant, the onus is on the part of the complainant to establish the case. A perusal of the new bills issued by opposite parties reveals that there is only a slight increase, that is as per the bills (Ext. P1series) prior to the installation of the new meter the highest bi-monthly consumption was 247 units on 18/7/2001 which fell to 146 units on 16/1/2002. After the installation of the new meter the highest consumption was 316 units on 22/3/2002 which fell to 255 units on 12/7/2002. It is further to be noted that no bills were raised by the opposite parties for the period for which the meter was moving sluggishly and the bills were raised as per reading on the newly installed meter. As such we cannot declare that the bills issued by the opposite parties are illegal. As complainant had not taken any steps to ascertain the accuracy of the new meter, we do not find any deficiency on the part of opposite parties in issuing bills as per the new meter. Complainant failed to establish the case. Complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties are left bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day of March, 2011.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A,

MEMBER.

S.K. SREELA,

MEMBER. ad.

C.C.No: 361/2002

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of bill No.VP.8864473 dated 27/11/2000 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

P1(a) : Copy of bill No. VP.0748210 dated 15/01/2001 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

P1(b) : " Bill No.C. 205951 dated 19/3/2001 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

P1(c) : " Bill No.A 917182 dated 17/5/2001 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

P1(d) : " bill No. E 698930 dated 18/7/01 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

P1(f) : " Bill No.E 703333 dated 17/09/01 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

P1(g) : " Bill No. G 500103 dated 19/11/01 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

P1(h) : " Bill No. H 913337 dated 16/1/2002 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

P1(i) : " Bill No. 50717 dated 22/3/2002 issued by the opposite party to the complaiannt.

P2 : Copy of letter addressed to 1^st opposite party by the complainant.

P3 : " the Certificate of posting

P4 : " the Advocate notice dated 22/3/02 issued by the complainant to 1^st opposite party

P5 : " the reply issued to Ext. P4 by the 1^st opposite party.

P6 : " letter dated 22/5/2002 addressed to 1^st opposite party.

P7 : " acknowledgement card addressed to the opp. Party.

3. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

4. Opposite parties documents : NIL

 PRESIDENT.