Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/708

MUHAMMED IQBAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

N G MAHESH

02 May 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHALANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 708/16

JUDGMENT DATED : 02.05.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.350/2014

 on the file of CDRF, Idukki)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT.R                          : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

             Muhammed Iqbal, Pookamala House, Chembalam.P.O

             Udumpanchola, Idukki

 

                                (BY Adv.Sri.N.G.Mahesh)

 

                                                VS

RESPONDENTS

1. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram

 

2. The Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram

 

3. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Nedumkandam, Chempalam.P.O, Idukki

 

                                                   (BY Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        :JUDICIAL MEMBER

               The complainant in CC.No.350/2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which the complaint filed by him was dismissed.

 

               2.      The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. The complainant is running a small scale metal crusher unit for his livelihood. In this crusher unit, a three phase electric connection bearing consumer no.26583 under LT IV tariff with a connected load of 66957 watts is installed. On 11.09.2014, an inspection was conducted by the APTS, Vazhathoppe, in these premises and prepared a report. On the basis of this report, the opposite parties issued a short assessment bill dated 17.09.2014 for Rs 1,59,474/- without describing the excess power consumption which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant further averred that he is conducting a crusher unit as a proprietorship. The bill issued by the opposite party is arbitrarily and against this the complainant approached the appeal authority and filed a petition challenging the above said bill. But the appellate authority, without hearing the complainant, rejected the complaint unilaterally. The complainant further stated that he is paying electricity bill regularly as per demand. Being, a small scale unit, all the electrical equipments such as transformer, meter, CT and allied fittings are installed in the premises by the KSEB authorities directly and they are the custodian. Usually the Sub Engineer of opposite party conducted inspection each and every month and noted reading and on the basis on APT Squad connected an equipment and suggested that the meter is defective and opined that the power factor noted as 0.71 as against the recommended value of 9. The complainant is having no technical knowledge in this area. All the above electrical equipments are installed by the opposite parties themselves and they are the custodian. So many times the opposite parties conducted inspection in the premises and not found any error in the equipments so far. If there is any defect in the electrical meter or allied equipments, it could be noted by the Engineer or Superintendent, since at these equipments are installed in a sealed box and the Sub Engineer is the custodian. If it is noted any defect, it is the bounden duty of the KSEB authorities to replace it as per Board Order No.(FM)/793/09(DPC-1) Replacement of faulty and sluggish Meters/2007/09 dated 21.03.2009. In order to establish the connection of the meter, APTS tested the meter with parallel meter and found that the voltage of the three phase is 205.09 V.209.6 V and 208.7 V respectively and noted all these readings by the Sub Engineer in his diary. On power factor test also they have not found any variations.  Since the KSEB is the custodian of the electrical equipments installed here and they are keeping each instrument in sealed boxes, it is their primary duty to cure any defect which was found there and the complainant is not at all liable for that. All the acts of the opposite parties stated above are warranting deficiency in service from their part. Hence the complainant approached the forum for getting reliefs such as to cancel the short assessment bill dated 16.10.2013 for an amount of Rs 1,59,474/- and other consequential reliefs.

               3.      Opposite parties filed version raising the following contentions. Opposite party contended that the complainant is an industrial consumer and not a consumer in the light of reported decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Laxmy Engineering Works Vs. P & G Industrial Unit as reported in 1955 (2) CPR. Opposite party further contended that during the inspection in the premises of the complainant on 11.09.2014, the squad detected that two of the phase voltage s of the meter were missing. Due to that the meter was recording only 1/3 of the actual consumption. There was a drastic drop in consumption from 01.04.2014 and the power factor of the premises was only 0.71 which is much less than the required power factor. Opposite party further averred that in order to establish the corruption of the meter, it was tested at TMR Division, Pallam and found it OK. Meanwhile the retrived data decoded from the meter and revealed that parameters 2 & 3 of the meter recorded OK WH from 01.02.2014 to 01.12.2014. Moreover, the power factor varied from 0.69 to 0.76 during the period from 01.03.2014. As such the report corroborates with the findings of the APTS that R & Y phases of the meter were not recording the consumption and average power factor is 0.71. Opposite party further contended that the opposite party board is empowered to collect he under charged bill amount due to non – recording of the meter. As per Section 134 of the Supply Code 2014, if the licensee establishes either by review or otherwise, that it has under charged the consumer, the licensee may recover the amount so under charged from the consumer. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala observed in WA No.114/2013 in WP      ( C) No.5614/2007 that in a situation where the licensee is prevented from realizing the price of energy supplied and consumed by the consumer on account of an inaccurate reading of the meter in the absence of any statutory position restraining the licensee from realizing its dues of placing any restriction on such right, ordinary the licensee is entitled to recover the charge subject of course to law of limitation. Failure of the installation of the meter to record the actual consumption was detected by a multi meter, which is an authenticated device to measure the voltage. The findings of the inspection team established by the meter test report. The person who is authorised to take periodical meter reading do not usually carry multimeter to measure the voltage. Moreover there is no defect in the meter as alleged in the complaint. But the defect in the installation to the meter caused non recording of the two phases. The defect was already rectified by the inspection team after inspection and as such there is no deficiency in service as alleged and the three phase showed uniform voltage on further inspection. Opposite party futher contended that the bill in challenge is issued as per the rules and the consumer is bound to pay the bill for the energy consumed. The opposite parties have no intention to extract unlawful money from the complainant. The penal bill was issued for the non recorded portion of the energy consumed and hence the consumer is bound to pay the bill for compensating or recouping the loss suffered by the Board. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite parties.

 

               4.      The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked on his side. DW1 was examined and Exts.R1 & R2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

 

               5.      Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum passed the impugned order by which the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the complainant has preferred the present appeal.

               6.         Heard both sides. Perused the records.

               7.         There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant was running a material crusher by consumer no.26583 under LT IV Tariff with a connected load of 66957 watts was installed. On 11.09.2014 an inspection was conducted by APTS, Vazhathoppe in the premises and detected that two phases voltage of the meter were missing and prepared a report stating that due to that fault the meter was recording only 1/3 of the actual consumption, of only one phase. Based on that the opposite parties had issued a bill for          Rs 1,59,474/- (Ext.A1) to the complainant. The complainant has filed the complaint to set aside / cancelled that bill. It is contended by the opposite parties that the defect in the installation of the meter to record the actual consumption was detected by multi meter which is an authenticated device measure the voltage. The defect was already rectified by the inspection team, after inspection and as such there is no deficiency in service as alleged and three phases showed uniform voltage on further inspection. There was no defect to the meter installed in the premises of the complainant. Due to the non recording of the meter reading the record consumption is only on 1/3 of the actual consumption. Hence the bill was issued for the non recorded portion of the energy consumed and the complainant is bound to pay the amount. It is the case of the complainant that meter was defective and all the electrical equipments in the premises were installed by the opposite parties and meter was installed in a box which is duly sealed by the opposite parties. Each and every month Section Engineer of KSEB conducted meter reading by opening the box and after that he keeps the key of the meter box. If any default caused in the power supply, the opposite parties are only liable for that. It is stated by the opposite parties that there was no defect in the meter and the failure of the installation of the meter to record the actual consumption was detected by the multi meter which is an authenticated device to measure the voltage. The person who is authorized to take periodical meter reading do not usually carry multi meter to measure the voltage the defect in the installation of the meter caused non recording of two phases. The defect was already rectified by the inspection team. At the time of inspection of the squad of the opposite parties they have detected that two of the phase voltage of the meter was missing and meter recorded only 1/3 actual consumption. By issuing the bill the opposite parties have only demanded amount for the energy which was actually consumed by the complainant. It is true that the non recording of two phases was not due to any act of the complainant and the opposite parties have no such case. But as found by the district forum we cannot ignore the fact that the complainant used the power which was not recorded properly. There is nothing to consider that the opposite parties have any kind of grudge against the petitioner. Conducting of the inspection, issue of bill, testing of meter are all done according to the prevailing regulations of the Board. Opposite parties acted only as per the relevant provisions of the Electricity Regulations to make good the loss sustained due to the defect in the installation of the meter. It is very clear that the opposite parties have no intention to extract unlawful money from the complainant. The bill was issued for the non record portion of the energy consumed by the complainant and hence he is bound to pay bill for recouping the loss suffered by the Board. The district forum found that the bill was issued by the opposite parties as per the rules and regulations and the amount calculated in the bill was as per the norms and it is established with clear and cogent evidence. Hence no deficiency in service is proved against the opposite parties. The district forum found that no case has been made out against the opposite parties by the complainant and hence the complaint was dismissed. Considering the evidence, facts and circumstances we consider that there is no ground / reason to interfere with the finding and the order of the district forum. So the appeal is to be dismissed.

 

                           In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

 

               Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.  

 

        T.S.P.MOOSATH      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

RANJIT.R                 : MEMBER

Be/

 

                

 

          KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHALANE

VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 708/16

JUDGMENT DATED :02.05.2019