O R D E R

R.Vijayakumar, Member.

(2)

The complaint is filed for the refund of the bill amount Rs.10797/- dtd: 16.11.04 and the bill amounts charged on the basis of average consumption of electricity during the period when the meter was faulty along with interest and costs.

The complainant’s case is that she was illegally charged with amount of Rs.10797/- as per bill dtd: 16.11.04. Though the complainant made a complaint before AE stating that here may be fault in recording the meter reading. As per the complaint the Assistant Engineer examined the meter and said to the complainant that there is no fault in the meter. The complainant was forced to remit the bill amount Rs.10997/-.

The door of the complainant was locked on reading dates: 18.05.06 and 17.07.06 and hence Rs.231/- and Rs.230/- were collected respectively as energy charges. As per the next reading taken on 17.09.06 only 9 units consumed for the previous six months including the period when the door was locked. It reveals that there is fault in the meter. Bill amounts, calculating average consumption of 149 was collected from the complaint for the continuing months up to 17.11.06.

On 12.12.06 the faulty mechanical meter was replaced by an electrical meter. For the subsequent four bills the reading found correct. But there after the meter reading became slow.

(3)

The consumption as per meter reading was as four units as on 15.03.07 and at last the meter became defunct. On 23.04.08 that new meter also was replaced by another new meter. The opposite party billed for Rs.398/- instead of Rs.107+ meter charges Rs.20 on 17.05.08, even though consumption was only 82 units.

The consumption of electricity in the premises of the complainant for a long period was below 200 units and bill amount below Rs.350/- when the electronic meter found faulty after 8 months after the date of replacement, the opposite parties charged total Rs.741/- as balance calculating average consumption + Rent of meter + interest.

At the instance of fault in mechanical meter also the opposite parties collected bill amount calculating the average consumption of previous 6 months. Whenever the consumption found lower and the meter found faulty opposite parties charged for average consumption. But in 2004 when the meter showed an unreasonable huge rate of consumption on 16.11.04 and the complainant made complaint before opposite parties alleging fault in meter, against her request the opposite party directed the complainant to pay the amount. The complainant was forced to pay that amount. The meter was not inspected by Electrical Inspector. The Assistant Engineer is bound to take

(4)

steps for conducting an inspection in the meter by the Electrical Inspector. The opposite parties are liable to refund the amount Rs.10797/- showing higher consumption rate, lower consumption rate, not showing any rate all are meter complaints.

The opposite parties are having right to collect average charges only in the circumstances that the fault in the meter is due to the fault from the side of the consumer. It was published in news paper also. In this case the fault bound in the meter was not due to the fault from the side of the consumer. Hence the opposite parties are liable to refund Rs.856 + 741 which was collected illegally with out any jurisdiction.

The complainant had filed a complaint before the Kerala State Electricity Board Adalath. The Adalath decided to refund half Rs/10797 + 1577. But in the intimation letter served to the complainant it is not mentioned. The complainant sustained heavy financial loss and mental agony. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for refund of Rs.10797/- + Rs.1577/- along with interest, Rs.271/- as per bill dtd:17.05.08 and for compensation Rs.75000/- and cost.

The opposite party filed version contenting the allegations. They have stated in the version that the complaint is baseless

(5)

and not sustainable. The Assistant Engineer inspected the meter and premises on the basis of the consumer’s complaint against the bill dtd: 16.11.04 for Rs.10797/-. It is found that the higher rate of energy consumption is due to the earth fault in the wiring of complainant’s residence which was 45 years old. The complainant was convinced this fact and the amount was remitted without any objection. The present complaint is barred by limitation. There was no fault in the meter. No application was submitted before Electricity Board for the inspection of meter by Electrical Inspector. The circumstances for the inspection by Electrical Inspector is different from this case. The responsibility to rectify the fault in wiring in the complainant’s premises is vested only upon the complainant.

As the meter found fully defunct the bills on dates 09/07, 11/07, 01/08 were re-decided  on the basis of the previous average consumption as 148 units. The balance collected as per these bills Rs.481 which was added to the bill of 03/08 was cancelled from the bill and it was credited in the current charge account as per the decision in the Adalath considering the application of the complainant. The bill dtd: 17.05.08 amounting Rs.323/- for the consumption of 176 units is correct and as per law. It cannot be changed. The bill dtd: 16.11.04 is correct and as per law and so it also cannot be changed. There

(6)

is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 examined. Exts.P1 to P15 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.

Points (1) & (2)

            It is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties as per consumer no.2005 of Electrical Section, Karunagappally.

            The main contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties had not taken steps to inspect the meter by the Electrical Inspector considering her complaint against the bill dtd: 16.11.04. It is her further contention that the second opposite party is bound to conduct such an inspection and as

(7)

he had not performed his duty, the complainant is entitled to get refund of that excess amount.

            The opposite party’s case is that there is no fault in the meter. The meter reading became high due to the earth leakage of electricity through the wiring in the premises which was about 45 year old. The complainant is the only person who is liable to rectify the leakage in the wiring. The complainant had remitted the bill without any protest. No application was submitted before the Board for the inspection of meter by the Electrical Inspector.

            The main prayer in the complainant, the refund of Rs.10797/- as per bill dtd: 16.11.04 which was remitted by the complainant on 01.01.05 is not sustainable. The complaint was filed before the Forum on 06.03.09 after the lapse of about 4 years and 2 months. The period of limitation Under Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is 2 years from the date of accrued of cause of action. Hence the complaint is barred by limitation.

            It is true that the average bi-monthly consumption of the complainant never exceeds 200 units. It is abnormal that the meter showed a consumption of 2104 units. The complaint

(8)

was lodged before opposite parties and the opposite parties had responded properly. They had conducted an inspection and informed the complainant that there is no fault in the meter. They had also informed that there is earth leakage in the wiring which was 45 years old.

            The complainant had remitted the bill amount. The complainant had no complaint for the subsequent bills. It is understood that the leakage in the wiring was rectified. If the complainant was so particular that there is fault in the meter, she could have easily exercised her right to lodge a complaint remitting the prescribed fee demanding. The inspection of the meter by the Electrical Inspector. As per the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, Regulation 42(1) “should the consumer dispute the accuracy of the meter installed in his premises he may sent a written application to Assistant Engineer and pay the prescribed fee for the test. On receipt of the application and testing fee the Assistant Engineer shall have the meter specially tested by the Board or Electrical Inspector to Government and where the meter is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as prescribed in the Indian Electricity Rules in force from time to time, the testing fee shall be returned to the consumer and the consumer bill adjusted in accordance with the result of test taken with respect to the meter reading of 6 months prior to the month in

(9)

which disputes has arisen due regard being paid to conditions of occupancy during month. “There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties regarding the non-inspection of meter by the Electrical Inspector as the complainant had not applied for such an inspection remitting the prescribed fee. Hence the complainant had no right to claim compensation against opposite party for the lapse from her side itself.

            The complainant had filed the complaint 4 years after the alleged cause of action. She had not filed delay condonation petition explaining the reason for the delay. There is no convincing reasons for the delay. Even though the complainant stated that she had submitted complaints before the opposite parties continuously, she had not produced convincing evidence. The complaint is highly belated. As per provision Under Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, the complaint is miserably barred by limitation.

            Admitted by both the parties that the meter was faulty for bill periods from 18/05/06 to 12/12/06. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party had right to collect charges calculating the average rate of consumption only in the circumstances where the meter became faulty due to the default from the side of the complainant. Here in the present case as there is no default committed by the complainant she is not

(10)

liable to remit the bill as per the calculation of average consumption in the meter faulty period. The complaint argued that it was published in the news paper that the consumer is bound to pay average charges only in the circumstances where the meter fault is due to the default from the side of consumer.

            The complainant has stated that it was decided in the Adalath to refund half of the bill amount dtd:16.11.04 and Rs.1577/- which was illegally collected from the complainant calculating average consumption for the meter faulty period  we have perused Ext.P7, the intimation letter. Such a decision is not seen in Ext.P7. It is seen that the adalath decided only to cancel the bills which was charged calculating 148 units of consumption on 11/07 and 01/08 and to adjust Rs.481/- in future bills. That amount was adjusted in subsequent bills. The adalth also decided that Rs.10797/- for the consumption of 2104 units cannot be refunded because it was due to the leakage of energy through the 45 years old wiring and not because of the fault in the meter. The bills as on periods 05/06 to 07/06 and 09/06, 11/06 are correct and based on provisions laid under Electricity Act.

            As per Section 19 (2) of Electricity Supply Code 2005 “ if licensee is unable to base a bill on the meter reading due to its

(11)

non-recording or malfunctioning, the licensee shall issue a bill based on the previous six months average consumption”.

            As per Section 19 (5) of the code, “When the meter reading cannot be taken due to the premises being locked up or made inaccessible, the consumer shall be provisionally charged the average consumption of last 6 months.

            It is clear that in the present case, the procedures followed by the opposite parties are correct. The complainant is liable to pay the charges calculating the average consumption of previous six months during the period when the meter was faulty and door of complainant was locked up.

            For all that has been discussed above, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

                              Dated this the 30^th day of October 2010.

                                                        K.Vijayakumaran     :Sd/-

                                                        Adv.Ravi Susha               :Sd/-

                                                        R.Vijayakumar         :Sd/-

                                                        // Forwarded by Order //

                                                           Senior Superintendent

(12)

INDEX

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW1                               - Muktha

List of documents for the complainant

P1                                  - Receipt dtd: 16.01.07

P2                                  - Copy of complainant dtd: 19.07.08.

P3                                  - Application dtd: 29.07.08.

P4                                  - Letter dtd: 27.08.08 BB/RTI/5/08-09/64

P5                                  - Statement issued by opposite party

P6                                  - Copy of remittance certificate

P7                                  -Reply letter from opposite party dtd: 13.01.09.

P8                                  - Copy of bill dtd: 17.03.09.

P9                                  - Copy of bill dtd: 16.05.09.

P10                                - Copy of complaint

P11                                - Copy of paper cutting

P12                                - Copy of bill dtd: 15.03.08.

P13                                - Copy of bill dtd: 15.05.08.

P14                                - Copy of bill dtd: 16.07.09.

P15                                - Copy of bill dtd: 16.09.09.

List of witnesses for the opposite party

DW1                               - Abdul Latheef