(2)
O R D E R
R.Vijayakumar, Member.
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
The complainant’s case is that she was illegally charged with an exorbitant bill amounting Rs.5760/- as per demand notice dated 04.08.09 and her complaint alleging that the fault in the meter was not considered. The meter was not inspected by the Electrical Inspector. Avoiding inspection of Electrical Inspector, opposite parties had replied to the complainant that there is no fault in the meter, reading is correct and the complainant is liable to pay the entire amount as per the alleged bill. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party’s case is that the bill amount exceeded because of defect in the motor and motor circuit in the complainant’s premises. As directed by the second opposite party, the meter was inspected by the Sub Engineer and oversear and they had filed report. Detailed reply was sent to the complainant No objection was raised by the complainant or had taken steps for inspection by the Electrical Inspector in the standard testing lab. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit. Exts P1 to P3 marked.
From the side of opposite parties DW1 examined. Heard both sides.
The points that would arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
(2) Compensation and cost.
(3)
Points (1) and (2)
Admittedly an abnormal reading was shown in the meter which was installed in the complainant’s premises and as per the meter reading the demand notices was issued to the complainant. It was also admitted that the average consumption of the complainant before the alleged bill was 224 units.
The main contention of the complainant is that the opposite party does not take any step for the inspection of the meter by Electrical Inspector considering her application alleging that there is fault in the meter.
The opposite parties contented that the meter reading is correct and the meter is defect free The same meter is being used in the premises of the complainant and working with out any defect. While cross – examination, the complainant has admitted that the alleged meter is still in use in the complainant’s premises and he is remitting electrical bills regularly as per the meter reading shown in the very same meter.
The Learned Counsel for complainant has argued that the provisions under Regulation 42 (3) of Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and conditions of Supply 2005 – Accuracy of meter was violated by the opposite parties. Regulation 42(3) clearly states that the complainant may report any complaint regarding the meter to the concerned Electrical Section. The inspection of the meter will be carried out using the standard reference meter (single phase / 3 phase) available in the Section Office which is tested, calibrated and sealed by the Electrical Inspectorate. If the meter is found faulty, such meters having found faulty shall be replaced immediately at the expense of the Board. If existing meter after having found faulty is replaced with a new one, the consumption recorded during the period in which the meter was faulty shall be reassessed based on the average consumption for the previous six months prior to the replacement of meter. If the average consumption for previous 6 months cannot be taken due
(4)
to the meter ceasing to record the consumption or any other reason, the consumption will be determined based on the meter reading in the succeeding six months after replacement of meter and excess claim if any shall be adjusted in the future current charge bills.
The argument of the Learned Counsel for the complainant that Regulation 42(3) was violated by the opposite party 3 cannot be accepted as the procedure for the inspection of meter by the Electrical Inspector is clearly stated in Regulation No.42(1) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and conditions of Supply 2005. It states that “ should the consumer dispute the accuracy of the meter he may send a written application to the Assistant Engineer and pay the prescribed fee for the test. On receipt of the application for the Assistant Engineer shall have the meter specially tested by the Board or Electrical Inspector to Government and where meter is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as prescribed in Indian Electrical Rules, in force, time to time, the testing fee shall be returned to the consumer and the consumer’s bill adjusted in accordance with the result of test with respect to the meter reading of six months prior to the month in which the dispute has arisen due regard being paid to conditions of occupancy during the month. The faulty meter will be replaced by another one in good working order or the same will be repaired and reinstalled. If the error is found to be within the limits allowed by the Indian Electrical Rules, the testing fee shall be forfeited to the Board and the consumer’s bill shall be confirmed.
The Learned Counsel for opposite party has argued that they have conducted inspection based on the complaint lodged by the complainant. As per report of the sub Engineer there is no fault in the meter. The complainant contented and has argued further that no inspection was conducted by the opposite party and no report was produced before the Forum hither to, even though the DW1 had deposed that the report can be produced.
(5)
The main point to be considered here is as to whether opposite parties committed deficiency by avoiding inspection of meter by the Electrical Inspector. If the complainant was so particular that the meter was faulty, it is her duty to take steps for the inspection of meter by the Electrical Inspector. She has no case that she has send written application before the Assistant Engineer paying prescribed fee for the special test of meter and even after that the Assistant Engineer was reluctant to take steps for test by Electrical Inspector. Hence the argument that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party in the non-testing of meter by Electrical Inspector is not sustainable. We cannot blame the opposite parties for the lapse from the side of the complainant. It is also pertinent to note that the same meter is in use in the complainant’s premises, still now. The complainant consumer is paying the bill regularly without any objection and it was admitted by PW1 in his deposition. Hence it is obvious that the complainant is also convinced that the meter is defect free.
As per Regulation 37 (4) of Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and conditions of Supply 2005 while communicating the decision on the review of the bill the board will advise the consumer in writing his right to prefer an application against the decision of the Board to Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum(CDGF) and further to appeal to the Ombudsman if required.
On perusal of Ext.P3 there is no such advice about the consumer’s right is mentioned in that letter. The consumer is entitled to get 7 days time for the payment of the bill with out fix from the date of issuance of the bill. It is specifically stated so in Reg.36 (2) of the Kerala State Electricity Board. Terms and conditions of Supply 2005. Here in this case as admitted by opposite parties also the bill was issued only on 10.08.12009. The last date with out fine in Ext.P3 is 11.08.09. Abnormality in the reading was found on 04.08.09, the date on which the spot biller has taken the meter reading. The opposite party has stated
(6)
in the version that the bill was not given on 04.08.09 for the check up of records. It may be true. But the opposite party has committed an inordinate delay for verification of records and issuance of bill. The consumer has got only one day for the payment of bill without fine and it is against the provisions under regulation 36 (2). There is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party in the violation of Regulation 36(2) and 37(4) of the Kerala State Electricity Board terms and conditions of Supply 2005.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation Rs.500/-and cost Rs.1500/- to the complainant.
The order is to be complied within on month of the date of receipt of the order.
Dated this the 30th day of November 2010.
K.Vijayakumaran :Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
// Forwarded by Order //
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
List of witnesses for complainant
PW1 - Jainamma.P
List of documents for complainant
P1 - Bill dtd : 04.08.09.
P2 - Letter dtd:10.08.09.
P3 - Letter dtd:22.08.09.
List of witnesses for opposite party
DW1 - Sherly Thomas
