BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.208/2008 Between Complainant : Abraham Scaria, Thuruthikkattil House, Idukki Colony P.O, Cheruthony, Idukki District. (By Adv: K.J.Thomas) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydhyudhi Bhavan, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Sub Division Office, Idukki Colony P.O, Vazhathoppu. O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is the owner of a building at Cheruthony which is divided into 3 rooms. An electric connection was availed for the same as Consumer No.V 208 B2/17 under VII B tariff. The complainant was promptly paying the bills issued by the opposite party. The opposite party was fixed only one meter for the 3 rooms and one room was given for lease by the complainant. In 2006 onwards the second room was also given for rent by the complainant. So the use of the electrical energy was increased. Again the invoices issued by the opposite party were promptly paid by the complainant. The complainant filed an application for fixing a separate meter for the second room, to the opposite party in 2006. But the opposite party fixed the same only in 2008. After fitting separate meter the energy consumption was also reduced. In 2005 November, the opposite party fixed a new electronic meter in the place of the old meter. After fitting the electronic meter the electrical energy consumption of the complainant was increased. So the 2nd opposite party issued a bill calculating 6 months average telling that the meter was faulty and an extra bill was issued for Rs.5,189/- on 1.11.2008. A disconnection notice was also given. The complainant's energy meter was working and the energy consumption of the complainant's connection was increased after giving the second room for rent, it was duly informed to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant. But the 2nd opposite party willfully issued a bill to the complaisant calculating an average consumption of previous 6 months. The complainant is not entitled to pay the same and so the petition is filed for cancelling the extra bill issued by the opposite party and such other reliefs. 2. The 2nd opposite party filed written version and also on behalf of the Ist opposite party, admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as consumer No.V 208(B2/17) under LT VII B tariff. It is also admitted that the complainant was promptly paying the bills. In 2005 onwards one room was given for rent. But the energy meter was not working on that period. So an average consumption was calculated as 25 units upto 8/2005, 125 units in 10/2005 and 125 units in 12/2005 and bi-monthly bill for the same was issued, it was paid by the complainant. The new meter was fixed on 25.11.2005 instead of the old meter. After fixing the new meter it is found that the consumption was increased to 324 units on 2/2006, consumption of 373 units on 4/2006 and 220 units on 6/2006. It is revealed from an audit carried out by the opposite party on 1.10.2006 and as per the audit report, the average previous 6 months consumption was billed to 43 consumers, accordingly a bill for Rs.5,189/- was given to the complainant. If a defective meter is changed and if it seen that the consumption is increased, the amount is charged for entire consumption of the defective period by KSEB. The average consumption was increased as 125 units in 10/2005 and 12/2005. It is revealed from the meter reading itself. On inspection it is revealed that 1237 Watts of electrical energy is used in the smoke testing centre which is working in the rented room of the complainant. Only for the average consumption of 6 months was calculated and bill was given by the opposite party. The Board is entitled to give a consumption charge for the entire meter faulty period, so there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party and the the opposite party acted upon the Rules and Regulations of the KSEB.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3(series) marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence from the part of opposite parties and Exts.R1 to R5 marked.
5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed against the hike bill issued by the opposite party. Complainant was examined as PW1, PW1 deposed that there were 3 number of rooms owned by PW1, only one electrical energy meter was fitted for all the three rooms. One room was given for lease. Application was given to the opposite party for fixing separate meter for the rooms in, 2006. The old meter was changed by a new meter by the opposite party on 25.11.2005. The second room also was given for lease from 2006 onwards. Then the consumption of the electrical energy was became high. The complainant was promptly paying the bills issued by the opposite party. In 2008 a separate meter was fixed for individual room as per the application by the complainant in 2006. A bill was issued to the complainant for Rs.5,189/- alleging that the meter was faulty which is Ext.P2. But the average consumption of the complainant was very low. Ext.P3(series) shows the same. The opposite party filed a written version and the learned counsel for opposite party cross examined the complainant. As per the written version of the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant was promptly paying the bi-monthly bills issued by the opposite party. The old meter was faulty and so it was changed on 25.1.2005, when it was examined on February 2006 it was found that the consumption was 324 units and 373 units on 4/06, and 220 units on 6/06. True copy of the Meter Reading Register is Ext.R3 which shows the same. An audit was carried out by the opposite party and as per the audit report, an average six months consumption charge was billed to the complainant which was done as per the circular dated 31.10.2007 of K.S.E.B. Ext.R3 is the copy of the Circular.
6. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant was promptly paying the bills issued by the opposite party. But the meter was faulty, so a new meter was fixed and an average consumption of six months was charged against the complainant. As per the complainant, the meter was not faulty. One room was given for lease previously. After that two rooms were given for rent. The complainant applied for fitting separate meter for individual rooms in 2006. But the opposite party fitted the same only in 2008. It is admitted by the opposite party that it is due to non-availability of energy meter. PW1 deposed that when the separate meter was fixed, consumption was regularized, which can be seen from Ext.R3. But when there was no separate meter, the energy meter reading was high and the complainant was promptly paying the same. So we think that it is not proper to charge the previous 6 months average energy charges against the complainant when the complainant was promptly paying the bill. Moreover, it is the duty of the opposite party to fit separate meter as per the application of complainant.It is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party to make 2 years delay for fixing a separate meter. There is no evidence brought out by the opposite party to show that the meter was faulty. Ext.R3 is the true copy of the meter reading diary of the consumer No.V 208 of the complainant, produced by the opposite party, shows the meter reading from June 2005 to October 2008, it shows that the consumption on August 2005 is 25 units and that of October 2005 is 125 units. But the meter reading is written as 2422 on June 2005, August 2005 and on October 2005. It means that there is some mistake happened to the opposite party in the calculation of the units of consumption. The consumers should not suffer for the mistake happened to the opposite party. And hence we think that the bill issued by the opposite party is due to the mistake of opposite party and liable for cancellation. The meter reading of the complainant's energy meter is reduced after the fixation of the new meter. It can be seen from Ext.R3. So we think there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant. Hence we think it is fit to cancel the penal bill issued to the complainant as per Ext.P2 dated 1.11.2005.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to cancel the penal bill issued to the complainant as Ext.P2 for Rs.5,189/- dated 1.11.2008. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2009 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Abraham Scaria On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - True copy of Penal bill No.61709 dated 1.11.2008 for Rs.5,189/- Ext.P2 - True copy of disconnection notice dated 7.11.2008 issued by the opposite party Ext.P3(series) - True copy of current bills dated 15.10.2005, 18.04.2007 and 25.08.2008 On the side of Opposite Parties : Ext.R1(series) - Photocopy of letter No.RAO/552/2006-2007/84 dated 1.12.2006 issued by the Regional Audit Officer to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Painavu, Inspection Report and Annexure III Ext.R2 - Photocopy of KSEB's Circular No.DPC II/Replacement of Faulty & Sluggish Meters/06/07 dated 31.10.2007 Ext.R3 - True copy of Meter Reading diary of consumer No.V 208 Ext.R4 - Photocopy of Provisional Invoice dated 18.12.2008 for Rs.8,009/- Ext.R5 - Photocopy of Site Mahazar prepared by Benny Joseph, Sub Engineer, KSEB, Painavu | 
