O.P.No.139/04 (Filed on 25.06.2004)

Between:

Thankamani,

Rajesh Bhavan,

Kochukottamonpara,

Chittar Village,

Ranni Taluk,

Pathanamthitta Dist.

(By Adv. Blessen Sam)                                                         .....     Complainant.

And:

1.     Secretary,

KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,

Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.     Asst. Exe. Engineer,

KSEB, Vadasserikkara,

Ranni Taluk.

3.     Asst.Engineer, KSEB,

Kakkad, Seethathodu,

Ranni Taluk.                                                       .....     Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:-  The complainant is a home nurse who is a consumer of the opposite parties and her consumer No. is 2850.  She was availing the power supply for the last 10 years and she used to pay the bi-monthly current bills regularly.  As the complainant is doing the work of a home nurse and her children are availing hostel accommodation there is no excess consumption of current.  At the end of the year 2003 electronic meter was replaced instead of old meter.  After the installation of the electronic meter the reading in the meter was high and it was brought to the notice of 3^rd opposite party.  But there is no action from the part of 3^rd opposite party. After that on 22.4.04 the complainant had received a bill for an amount of ` 3,527 stating that she had used 867 unit of electric current.  Since the complainant has not consumed excess current she made a complaint again before 3^rd opposite party. Due to the non-payment of the above said bill amount the 3^rd opposite party disconnected the power supply of the complainant.

                   3. Even after disconnecting the power supply, on 22.6.04 the opposite parties have issued another bill to the complainant for directing to remit an amount of ` 303 towards the current charge.  Without remitting the amount demanded as per the bill-dated 22.4.04 the opposite parties did not accept this bill amount.  On 17.6.09 the opposite parties have issued a bill for ` 6,162 towards the meter charges for the disconnected period.  As the complainant’s power supply was disconnected, the complainant is not liable to pay the meter charges during this period.  There is a deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties in issuing the above said bills.  Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order to declare the bills dated 22.4.04, 22.6.04 and 17.6.09 as ab-initio void and to grant compensation and cost to him.  The complainant prays for granting the reliefs.

                   4. The 2^nd opposite party has filed a version on behalf of all the opposite parties raising the following contentions.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The electric connection to the Consumer No.2850 is in the name of Sri. A. Prakash and the complainant is not a consumer as per records.  Meter readers are entrusted with the duty of taking meter reading bi-monthly and for this purpose they visit the premises of the consumers once in every two months and record the energy consumption in their presence.  Invoice according to the consumption is prepared and given to consumer for remittance.  With regard to the Con.No.2850 whenever the meter readers on duty visited the premises of the complainant her house was always seen locked from inside found inaccessible to the energy meter as it is installed inside.  Since the complainant has not responded to the calling of meter readers on several occasions, the opposite parties are constrained to prepare invoices based on the average consumption, after having issued door lock notice to the complainant.  All the invoices were affixed at the conspicuous part of her house, as no inmates were seen at the premises.

                   5. On 28.8.02 an electronic meter was installed at the instance of 3^rd opposite party following the complaints of mechanical meter.  No complaints were made with the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party pertaining to billing or functioning of the meter so far.  The connected load of the service connection is 1525 watts.  The meter reader could record the reading on 22.4.04 when the doors were opened to him at the time of his visit.  The meter showed the consumption of 1959 units in which 132 units represent consumption up to 19.10.2002.  So the energy consumption from 19.10.2001 to 22.4.04 has been assessed to 1827 units.  Between the aforesaid periods bimonthly invoices were prepared based on the average consumptions and it came to 960 units (120 units x 8).  Therefore, the remaining unit to be billed comes to 867 units (1827-960) and the invoice has been prepared for 867 units and a bill for ` 3527 was issued accordingly.

                   6. The complainant has made an allegation that the aforesaid bill was due to the malfunctioning of the energy meter.  But she has not brought the fact to the authorities concerned with a view to taking action.  The complainant did not made any complaint with the opposite parties her grievances could have easily been redressed.  Nevertheless she could have approached the Electrical Inspectorate to get the meter checked.  Without doing so the complainant directly approached before the Forum.  The bills were prepared as per rules.  A grace period of 15 days was allowed to her but she was not ready to do so.  The reading was again taken on 22.6.04 and a bill for ` 303 was issued.  The same is yet to be remitted.  Accordingly the opposite parties were constrained to disconnect the service w.e.f. 6/04.  Hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.

                   7. Section 33(7) of Conditions of supply 2005 empowers opposite parties to levy minimum charges during the period of disconnection of electricity.  Hence the consumer is bound to pay the minimum charges from the date of disconnection wards.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        8. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:

(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3) Relief and Costs?

           9. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 on the complainant’s side.  For the opposite parties, photocopy of the meter reading register was marked as Ext.B1.  After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.

          10. This Original Petition was already disposed by this Forum as per the order dated 30.12.05 by allowing the prayer of the complainant that the Ext.A1 bill dated 22.4.04 for ` 3,527 issued by the opposite parties was declared as ab-initio void and was set aside and allowed compensation and cost.  Aggrieved by this order the opposite parties have filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CDRC calling for the interference of the commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by this Forum.  After hearing both sides appeal remanded back before the Forum with direction to fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence if any to substantiate their rival contentions.

          11. The complainant’s case is that the complainant is a home nurse who had been remitting bi-monthly charges to the opposite parties regularly and after the replacement of the new electronic meter she was served with bills on higher side and that on 22.6.04 she was given a bill for ` 3,527 and consequent to the non-remittance of the same her supply was disconnected.  Another bill for ` 303 was given to her on 22.6.02 and on 17.6.09 she was given a bill for ` 6,162.  The complainant alleged that she is not liable to pay the above said bills.  Hence she filed this complaint for getting reliefs as sought for in the complaint.

          12. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2.  Ext.A1 is the bill for `3,527 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the bill dated 22.6.04 for ` 303 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. 

          13. Opposite parties contenting that the consumer No.2850 was given in the name of Sri. A. Prakash and that the complainant is not the registered consumer as per the records.  After replacing the new meter on 28.2.02 the reading was taken on 19.10.02 and the reading was 132 units and issued bi-monthly spot bill.  From 10/02 to 2/04 the reading could not be taken as the complainant’s door was locked when the meter reader went to the premises for taking the meter reading.  Hence bi-monthly spot bill was issued as per rules.  In 4/04 the reading was taken and it was found that the complainant had consumed 1827 units.  The additional bill was issued deducting the consumption charge paid.  The bill for ` 303 issued was a regular bill for the consumption from 24.4.04 to 22.6.04.  As per Sec.33(7) of Conditions of Supply 2005 empowers opposite parties to levy minimum charges during the period of disconnection of electricity.

          14. We have perused all the documents produced from both sides.  On a perusal of Ext.B1 meter reading register on 28.8.02 meter was changed and on 19.10.02 the reading was recorded as 132 units.  From 19.10.02 to 22.4.04 it was recorded as (D/L) Door locked and no reading was recorded.  On 22.4.04 the reading is recorded as 1959 units.  During the door locked period the opposite parties have issued bi-monthly spot bill for an average of 120 unit/2 months as per rules.  According to the opposite parties, the reading on 22.4.04 showed a consumption of 1959 units in which 132 units is the consumption up to 19.10.02.  During the door locked period the complainant had given the charges for 960 units.  For the remaining portion of the consumption i.e. 867 units Ext.A1 bill for ` 3,527 was issued.  In Ext.A1, there is no calculation regarding the bill amount that they arrived into.  In the Appeal order it was also stated as “I find that Ext.A1 is silent about the details of calculation I find that the appellants are to be given an opportunity to substantiate their claim by producing additional evidence if any and in such a situation the only course open to us is to remit the matter to the Forum below for fresh disposal”.  As per the order there is no additional evidence from the opposite parties regarding the calculation of bill amount.  The charges for per unit, which they calculated and additional charges if any imposed were not known the complainant.  The complainant has the right to know about the details of the amount, which arrived into the Ext.A1 bill.  It is the duty of the opposite party to given the details of the calculation of bill amount while issuing additional bills to the consumers.  But the opposite parties failed to substantiate their claim by producing additional evidence.  In the circumstances, Ext. A1 bill is liable to be set aside and we find that there is a clear deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties in issuing Ext.A1 bill.

          15. Ext.A2 is the bill for paying ` 303 for 168 units of current.  As per the records the amount demanded in Ext.A2 is payable by the complainant for the consumption of current during the period 22.4.04 to 22.6.04.  Hence the opposite parties are entitled to get the Ext.A2 bill amount from the complainant.

          16. Another prayer of the complainant is that the opposite parties have issued another bill after disconnection on 17.6.09 for ` 6,162 as the meter rent of the disconnected period.  According to the complainant, the complainant’s electric connection is not reconnected still now and she is not liable to pay the meter rent for the disconnected period.  Hence she prayed for set aside the bill-dated 17.6.09 issued by the opposite parties.  The complainant has not produced the above said bill before the Forum.  Even though as per Sec.33(7) of Condition of Supply 2005, the opposite parties can levy minimum charges during the period of disconnection of electricity.  Hence the complaint is liable to pay minimum charges from the date of disconnection onwards.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to pay the bill amount (minimum charges) dated 17.6.09.

          17. In the result, this complaint is allowed with modifications, there by the Ext.A1 bill dated 22.4.04 is declared as ab-initio void and is hereby set aside.  The complainant is liable to pay the Ext.A2 bill amount, as it is the charges for the actual consumption.  The complainant is also liable to pay the bill amount dated 17.6.09, as it is the meter rent during the disconnected period.  For the reason of deficiency in service and negligence from the opposite parties by issuing Ext.A1 the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of ` 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) and a cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are directed to pay the amounts so awarded within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which an interest at the rate of 12% per annum will be paid to the complainant till the payment.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of March, 2011.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                                      C. Lathika Bhai

                                                                                            (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                  :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                 :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Thankamani

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Bill dated 22.4.04 for ` 3,527 issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the     

             complainant. 

A2     :  Bill dated 22.6.04 for ` 303 issued by the 3^rd  opposite party to the 

              complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :  Photocopy of the meter reading register.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                 Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Thankamani, Rajesh Bhavan, Kochukottamonpara,

                       Chittar Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.

(2)  Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,        Thiruvananthapuram.

(3) Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Vadasserikkara,

             Ranni Taluk.

(4) Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Kakkad, Seethathodu,

                       Ranni Taluk.

                  (5) The Stock File.