BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 225/2000 Filed on 26.04.2000<br /> Dated : 30.07.2008<br /> <br /> Complainant: <br /> <br /> K. Bhaskarapanicker, Bhaskara Vilasom, Parandode P.O(via), Aryanad, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. S. Williams)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.The Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.Assistant Executive Engineer, Electric Major Section, Vithura. <br /> <br /> (By adv. Shaji Chellappan)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 09.02.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 31.05.2008, the Forum on 30.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> SRI.G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is the consumer of opposite parties with consumer No. 1686. The meter reading was taken during 8th month of 1997 and recorded as zero. Complainant was regularly remitting the periodical bills without any failure and had remitted Rs. 5144.10 till 1999. The 2nd opposite party miserably failed to record the periodical measurements. After a long lapse of two years, Bill No. 88533 dated 09.03.2000 was served on the complainant and directed the complainant to remit an amount of Rs. 7856/-. Complainant has never consumed power to accrue this very huge amount in arrears. 2nd opposite party ought to have recorded the periodical meter reading. Had it been done, the unnecessary and unwarranted surcharge should have been avoided. Complainant on 13.03.2000 submitted a written letter to the 2nd opposite party to test the meter, but no action has been initiated so far. Complainant very strongly believes that the meter is a faulty one. Complainant since afraid of disconnection is paying the bill on instalment basis, which is liable to be returned subject to the order of this Forum. Hence this complaint for cancellation of the said bill No. 88533 dated 09.03.2000 for an amount of Rs. 7856/- and for refund of the same with interest at the rate of 18%. <br /> <br /> Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The energy meter attached to the premises was faulty and the same was changed on 13.08.1997. Thereafter meter readings were taken periodically. Averments to the contrary are not true and hence denied. For making payment towards current charges in respect of service connection vide consumer No. 1686 under the 2nd opposite party an additional bill for Rs. 7856/- was issued to the consumer. The demand was raised as per the rules and hence there is no need to withdraw the same. Periodical meter readings were taken in respect of this service, timely billing could not be done. This was because of lack of staff in adequate numbers and to mitigate the difficulty of the consumer in honouring the demand in lumpsum, easy instalment facility was also granted to the complainant. After the change of meter on 13.08.1997, the same is working satisfactorily and recording correct consumption. The consumption in the premises during the relevant period was quite commensurate with the connected load in the premises and the business activities going on in that premises. Complainant had approached this Forum with unclean hands by suppressing the material fact that a twenty bedded hospital has functioned in the premises in question. Taking that fact into consideration it can be seen that there is no abnormality in the total consumption recorded in the meter. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of this complaint with costs to opposite parties. <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether the complainant is entitled to get cancelled the Bill No. 88533 dated 09.03.2000 issued by opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs. <br /> <br /> To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and marked documents as Exts. P1 to P3. On behalf of opposite parties counter affidavit sworn by K. Sreedharan, Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Major Section, Vithura has been filed and marked copies of the relevant pages of meter reading register as Ext. D1. <br /> <br /> Points (i) to (iii):- Complainant is a consumer of opposite party with consumer No. 1686. It has been the case of the complainant that complainant is not a defaulter in remitting the periodical bills. Submission by the complainant is that the meter reading was originally taken on 08/97 and recorded as zero. Subsequently after a long lapse of 2 years opposite parties served a bill No. 88533 dated 09.03.2000 on the complainant directing him to remit an amount of Rs. 7856/-. It has also been the case of the complainant that the complainant has never consumed power to accrue this very huge amount in arrears. Ext. P1 is the said bill issued by the 2nd opposite party. As per Ext. P1 tariff is LT VI (b), the bill period is from 08/97 to 07/99. Last meter reading recorded on 07/99 was 6043/23, while prior reading on 08/97 was zero. In the version it is specifically stated that total consumption is 6043/23, unit wise calculation is seen made and corresponding charge has been recorded. As per Ext. P1 total charge for 6043 units would come to Rs. 12285.53, out of which remittance of Rs. 5144.10 by the complainant during the said period has been adjusted, and the balance would come to Rs. 7856/-, which the complainant was directed to remit by the opposite parties. Ext. P2 is the copy of the letter dated 13.03.2000 sent to 2nd opposite party by the complainant, wherein it has been mentioned that the meter reading was taken on 08/97 and recorded as zero. Subsequently after a long lapse of two years the meter reading was taken on 07/99 and recorded as 6043. Further the meter is defective which run in an irregular way. Complainant in his affidavit averred that, afraid of disconnection, the entire amount of Rs. 7856/- and accrued interest amounting to Rs. 8123/- was paid by him. Ext. P3 is the sanction letter dated 25.02.2000 allowing payment of energy charges in instalments issued by the 2nd opposite party. In the affidavit it is stated that Ext. P3 is the receipt. The main thrust of argument advanced by the opposite parties is that Ext.P1 demand was raised as per rules. Further submitted that even though periodical meter readings were taken, timely bill could not be done. This was because of lack of staff in adequate number and to mitigate the difficulty of the consumer in honouring the demand in lumpsum easy instalment facility was also granted to him. Submission by the opposite party was that on receipt of complaint, the meter was inspected by the KSEB staff and it was found working properly. Ext. D1 is the copy of relevant pages of the meter reading register. It is pertinent to point out as per Ext. D1 that the meter reading on 08/97 was recorded as zero. It is apparent from Ext. D1 that meter reading on 07/97 was 1490. Since the energy meter attached to the premises was faulty the same was changed on 13.08.1997. Thereafter meter readings were taken periodically. It is seen recorded in Ext. D1 as 'MC on 13.8.1997 FR- 1691, IR-0000'. On 16.01.1998 meter reading was 1350, which rose to 3279 on 07/98, which rose to 5107 on 01/1999 and on 07/1999 it rose to 6043. A perusal of Ext. D1 would reveal that at the time of installation of meter on 13.08.1997 the meter reading was zero. By perusing the pattern of meter reading from 08/97 to 07/99 as per Ext. D1 no abnormality can be seen. Submission by the opposite party is that after the change of meter on 13.08.1997, the same is working satisfactorily and recording correct consumption. Further submission by the opposite parties is that during the relevant period the consumption was quite commensurate with the connected load of the private hospital running in the premises. Even though the same was pleaded in the version, complainant never denied it in the affidavit. It remains unchallenged by the complainant. Moreover opposite parties filed affidavit wherein it was affirmed that the service connection with consumer No. 1686 was availed by the complainant for commercial purposes. Meter readings were recorded periodically. The consumption recorded during the relevant period quite commensurate with actual consumption and connected load of the private hospital running therein. On going through the complaint and version and affidavit and Exts. P1 to P3 and D1 and hearing, we are of the considered opinion that Ext. P1 bill is genuine. Hence complainant is not entitled to get cancelled the bill No. 88533 dated 09.03.2000 issued by the 2nd opposite party. Since the demand regarding previous arrears of period not much more than two years immediately preceding the demand, the said demand is within the period of limitation. Opposite parties are entitled to raise just demand which could not have been raised due to error/omission on its part. Consumers are liable to pay charges leviable as per law. Complainant cannot attribute deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Deficiency in service not proved. Complainant has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th July 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 225/2000<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Original Adjustment Invoice Receipt No. 88533 dated 21.02.2000 issued by the 2nd opposite party. <br /> P2 - Copy of letter dated 13.03.2000 to the opposite party issued by the complainant.<br /> P3 - Original payment of the adjustment bill of Consumer No. 1686 dated 28.02.2000. <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :<br /> NIL <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> D1 - Copies of the relevant pages of meter reading register. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br />