IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2021

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 118/2017 (filed on 10-05-2017)

Petitioner                                          :   1) Mathew Joseph,

                                                                   Co. No.1146451024958,

                                                                   VII A, M02/1/1, Pallathu House,

                                                                   Kudamaloor P.O, Kottayam.

                                                                   Represented by Licensee

                                                                   Sunil M.R,

                                                                   Managing Director,

                                                                   Satbions Builders and

                                                                   Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                                   Peroor P.O.  Kottayam – 686637.

                                                                   (Adv. Sethu Kumar S.)

                                                                                     Vs.

   Opposite Party                              :     1) The Special Officer (Revenue)

                                                                   Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom

                                                                   Thiruvananthapuram – 695004.

                                                                2)  Assistant Engineer,

                                                                   Electrical Section, K.S.E.B.

                                                                   Kottayam East – 01.

                                                                 3) Secretary,

                                                                   K.S.E.B. Vydyuthi Bhavan,

                                                                   Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram,

Pin -695004.

                                                                   (For Op 1 -3, Adv. Majesh P.B.

                                                                   And Adv. Deepthy S.Nath)

O  R  D  E  R

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

    This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complainant is the Managing Director of Sarbions builders and developers(I) Pvt. Ltd., Consumer no 1146451024958 who is LT7 A consumer. The owner of the building no VII A,M02/1/1 is one Mathew Joseph. On 07/07/2015 the complainant entered into a license agreement with the said Mathew joseph where the complainant was running a modular kitchen sales shop. The second opposite party issued a non-dated notice to the complainant along with a bill dated 12-04-2017 with number 4635170409980 demanding the amount of Rs.1,16,785/- which reads as : “Electricity connection bears consumer number 1146351024958 having connected load of 17332 watts. The then existing meter was found faulty and the same was replaced on 10.02.16. Before replacement average assessment was 150kwh and remittance was accordingly without fail. After replacement of the meter average assessment (150Kwh) continued up to 01.03.2017. Considering the meter change from 01-03-2017 to 01-04-2017 bill issued but the actual replacement and actual consumption is not billed. Hence short assessment from 10-02-2016 to 28-02-2017 an amount of 1,16,785/- is due.  If it is not remitted before 12-05-2017 electricity connection shall be disconnected”.  All the allegations contained in the notice are false.

The allegation that the meter was faulty is not correct. The opposite parties are the custodian of the meter. If the same is found faulty, the complainant ought to have been intimated. No notice was sent to the complainant regarding this.                     The complainant has never defaulted the payments. Nowhere in the electricity bill the default of the meter was recorded.

The complainant is not aware about the replacement of the meter and even if it was replaced, it is not sure that which meter was faulty. As per the allegation in the notice, the meter was replaced on 10.02.2016 and it is also admitted that average assessment continued up to 1.3.2017.It is a mistake committed by the opposite parties. It is the opposite party who inspected the meter and gave the bill regularly. If the meter was faulty, they should have informed the complainant and taken steps accordingly. So the complainant is not liable to suffer for a mistake committed by the opposite parties and hence the complaint is filed for setting

aside the impugned notice and bill and for compensation.

The opposite parties appeared on receipt of notice and joint version filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Electrical sub division Kottayam contending as follows:

The 1^st opposite party is not a necessary party to the complaint and the complaint

be considered excluding the 1^st opposite party. The service connection with consumer number 1146351024958 is registered in the name of Mathew Joseph, Palatty House, Kudamaloor P.O, Kottayam with a connected load of 17332 watts and LT VII A tariff. The Satbions Builders & Developers Pvt.Ltd.is using the building for commercial purpose for a modular kitchen sales shop named “Torelazio” from July 2015. The connected load of the consumer was enhanced from 1100 watts to 17332 watts from 28.10.2015 as per the application of the consumer.

The meter installed in the premises of the consumer was faulty from 03.02.2016 and the consumer was being billed for a meagre average of 150 units. The faulty meter of the consumer with serial no 15587458 make L & T was replaced on 10.02.2016 with a good meter with serial no 4210476 with an initial reading of zero units. The said meter was replaced as per the direction from the Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB Ltd as the meters supplied by the manufacturer had critical firmware related issues and all the meters as per the purchase order no. SCM 35/2015-16 dated 24.07.2015 with serial no 15582667 to 15602666, 15604767 to 15614766 and 15638585 to 15664584 were directed to be rejected. The Deputy Chief Engineer (SCM), KSEB Ltd, had issued letter no TA.31/SCM 35/2015-16/4085 dated 16.12.2015 in this regard.

Subsequent monthly bills of the consumer were issued recording the actual reading of the consumer. The new meter installed was having an initial reading of  and on 01-3-2016 the present reading was 739,on 01-04-2016 it was 1957, On 02-05-16 the present reading is 3490.But in all the above bills the complainant was not charged for the actual consumption of 739,1957,3490 respectively but only charged for 150 units as previous average. So the bill amount was only 3281 instead of 9735, 14635, 17858 for all these months. The details of the bills issued and the actual bills to be issued are:

Short assessment amount Rs116785/-

Less advance adjusted Rs.1509/-

Balance amount to be paid Rs.115276/-.

The consumer was not billed for the actual consumption for the above period but only an average amount of Rs.3281 for the said 13 months. The consumer was short assessed for the period from 1.3.26 to 1.3.17.The old meter was replaced with the new meter on 10.2.16 and it is recorded in the meter reading register as m/c (meter changed) on 10.2.16 ,FR(final reading of old meter) NV(not visible) IR(initial reading of new meter)0. After the meter replacement and issuance of the short assessment bill the regular bills from 1.4.17 was issued to the consumer based on the recorded reading in the same energy meter and the consumer paid the bill amounts without any dispute. Hence the accuracy of the meter is well accepted by the consumer. The premises of the consumer was inspected by the sub engineer of electrical section Kottayam east on 12.2.2020 and site mahazar was prepared. The meter no 4210476 make Genus is still installed in the premises and is functioning as good meter. The short assessment bill was issued to the consumer on 12.4.17 only because he was being charged only for the previous assessment. The total bill amount of Rs.116785/- an amount of Rs.1509/- is adjusted as advance. Hence the outstanding amount to be paid is Rs.1,15,276/- As per regulation 134(1) of Kerala Electricity supply code 2014the said action of the opposite parties is fully legal. It is recorded that the consumer is not over charged or penalised in any manner. The short assessment bill was issued to the consumer to realise the amount under charged. The bill dated 3.4.17 and 2.5.17 show an actual consumption of 715 units. The consumer had paid both the bills without any dispute. The complainant is conducting a modular kitchen sales shop named ‘Torelazio’ by engaging many employees in the name and style of Satbions builders & developers Pvt. Ltd., registered under the Companies Act 1958 with intention of profit making using the consumer number 1146451024958  Hence the complainant will not come under the definition of the word consumer . No deficiency of service has occurred from the part of the 1^st opposite party. The petitioner is fabricating facts to mislead this commission. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit along with Exhibits A1 and A2 whereas the opposite party filed Exhibits B1 to B10 along with the proof affidavit. The opposite party has examined DW1.

On a detailed examination of the pleadings and evidence on record, we are of the

opinion of framing the following points:

1. Whether the demand of payment made by the opposite party is as per the legal provisions?

2. If not whether it would constitute an act of deficiency in service?

3. What are the damages caused to the complainant due to the deficiency   

     If occurred?

Point No 1

1. The case of the complainant is that though he was paying the electricity bills regularly without any default, the opposite parties sent a demand cum disconnection notice owing to a default in the meter which was not known to him. The opposite parties raised a contention that due to a mistaken supply of defective meters, the higher officials directed them to replace the already installed defective meters with new ones and hence they had to reassess the bills of the complainant and even after the receipt of the reassessed bill, as the complainant defaulted in payment, they sent the demand cum disconnection notice.

2. The complainant received a demand cum disconnection notice nil dated and

a bill dated 12.04.2017 for the payment of an amount of 116785.00 for a period from 02/16 to 02/17. The contention of the opposite party is that as per Exhibit B2, letter sent by the Deputy chief engineer (SCM) to the executive engineer, TMR Division, Thirumala, Pallom, Angamaly,Shornur and Kannur stating that the three phase meters received vide the P.O under ref(1) are showing erroneous KWH readings at many section offices under electrical circle, Pathanamthitta and that the KWH register is getting automatically reset in an unknown period. The meters supplied by the manufacturer had critical firmware related issues and all the meters of certain serial numbers were directed to be rejected.

3. The meters were faulty even at the time of installation. This was a mistake

committed by the opposite parties. When the opposite parties realised that the meters were faulty, they charged the consumer only for 150 units instead of 739 units. So the consumer was billed for an amount of Rs.3281/- instead of                          Rs. 9735/- .

4. Here the point to be considered is what are the procedures to be adopted by

the opposite parties at the time of installation of meters. As per rule 113 of

Kerala electricity supply code “Testing of meter (1) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to satisfy itself regarding the accuracy of the meter before it is installed and the licensee shall test them or get them tested in an accredited laboratory or in an approved laboratory.” Here there is no evidence before us to show whether the opposite party has taken necessary steps as per this.

Now, the meter found faulty for any reason on 10.2.16 and the opposite party electricity board has billed Exhibit B3 on 1.3.16for 150 units as consumption, present reading as 739,previous reading as 150. The amount charged is Rs.3279The arrears column in B3 bill is shown as nil. But in B4, the initial reading is 739 and final reading is 1957 and the units is 150. The status of meter is suspected faulty. The arrears in B4 bill is Rs.13324/-. B4 is the bill of next month succeeding to B3. As there was no arrears shown in B3, there should be a sufficient reasoning for the recording of arrears of Rs.13324 in the next bill. Moreover, the suspected faulty meter was recognised as faulty and was replaced on 10.2.16 itself but it remained as  ‘suspected faulty’ in all the subsequent bills. In their version the opposite parties averred that the complainant is charged for only 150 units as the previous average from 1.3.16.

Exhibit B6 is a series of bills of a period of one year. In all these bills the status of the meter is shown as suspected faulty. But the opposite party has failed to prove that when and how the meter has been found to be non-defective.                        The opposite party themselves admit that the meter was faulty and they replaced it on 10.2.16. For that also no procedure as per S.116 is seen followed. The opposite parties are bound to follow the procedure as per regulation 115 and 116 of the Supply code for the replacement of a defective meter.

115. Procedure for testing of meter –

 (1) The meter shall normally be tested in the laboratory of the licensee, approved by the Commission.

(5) Before testing a meter of the consumer, the licensee shall give an advance notice of three days, intimating the date, time and place of testing so that the consumer of his authorised representative can, at his option, be present at the testing.

(6) The testing shall be done within a maximum period of thirty days from the receipt of the application.

(7) The consumer or his authorised representative and the representative of the licensee present during testing shall affix their signature on the test report issued by the authorised officer of the laboratory as a token of having witnessed the testing:

Provided that the licensee and the consumer shall be eligible to get a copy of the test report which shall be despatched to them within two working days of the date of testing, if not delivered in person at the time of affixing their signature.

116. Replacement of defective meter –

(1) The licensee shall periodically inspect and check the meter and associated apparatus.

(2) If the meter is found defective, the licensee may test it at site, if feasible, and if not feasible, the meter shall be replaced with a correct meter and the defective meter shall be got tested in an accredited laboratory or in an approved laboratory.

(6) If the meter is found defective, the licensee and the consumer shall follow the procedure as detailed in regulation 115 above.

5. In the cross examination of DW1,who is the assistant executive engineer,

KSEB has deposed that  “10þ02þ2016 Xnb-Xn-bmWv hmZn-bpsS aoäÀ amän sh¨n-«p-Å-Xv. Ext.B3 apX B7 h-sc-bpÅ bill IÄ aoäÀ amän-sh¨ tij-apÅ bill IÄ BWv. AXv 13 amks¯ _nÃp-IÄ D­v. aoäÀ amän-sh¨ tijw \evIn-bn-«pÅ 13 _nÃp-I-fnepw suspected faulty meter F¶mWv ImWn-¨n-«p-ÅXv. aoäÀ amän-sh¨ tijw reading FSp¯ BÄ¡v FXnsc Fs´-¦nepw \S-]-Sn-IÄ FSp-¯n-«pt­m? (Q). FSp¯ aoäÀ doUnwKv icn-bm-Wv.  AXv suspected faulty meter status  InS-¶Xv sIm­v reading A\p-k-cn¨v DÅ-b-YmÀ° bill \evIp-hm³ Ign-ªn-cp-¶n-Ã. (A). BcpsS D¯-c-hm-Zn-¯-an-Ãmbva sIm­mWv C{]-Imcw icn-bmb _nÃv \evIm³ Ign-bmsX h¶Xv (Q).  Billing Section  \n¶mWv CXp-t]m-se-bpÅ amä-§Ä hcp-t¯-­-Xv.”  Here the impugned bill issued by the opposite parties Exhibit A1   is dated 12.04.2017.The meter was replaced by the opposite parties on 10.2.2016.Exhibit A2 notice was issued somewhere in 2017 demanding the short assessment amount of Rs.1,16,785/- for the period from 2/16 to 2/17.

The average taken is for the 13 months succeeding the meter change. As per Rule 125(2) the opposite party can claim the unbilled amount only for a period of two billing cycle.  

Procedure for billing in the case of defective or damaged meter –

1. In the case of defective or damaged meter, the consumer shall be billed on the basis of average consumption of the past three billing cycles immediately preceding the date of the meter being found or reported defective.

Provided that, the average shall be computed from the three billing cycles after the meter is replaced if required details pertaining to previous billing cycles are not available:

Provided further that any evidence given by consumer about conditions of working and occupancy of the concerned premises during the said period, which might have had a bearing on energy consumption, shall also be considered by the licensee for computing the average.

2. Charges based on the average consumption as computed above shall be levied only for a maximum period of two billing cycles during which time the licensee shall replace the defective or damaged meter with a correct meter.

Here the bill is for 13 months. So the bill turns to be void. So it is found that

Exbt A1 bill and A2 notice are not enforceable.

There are several procedural irregularities all along the dealings of the opposite parties. The opposite parties being responsible officials of a public institution ought to have shown more diligence in handling public exchequer. The consumer need not be the victim of the negligence shown by the public officers. So the irregularity and utmost carelessness shown by the opposite parties in computing the bills as per the legal provisions are found to be gross negligence and hence we allow the complaint as:

1. The Bill dated 12-04 -17 is set aside provided the opposite parties can realise the amount for an average consumption of the two billing cycle prior to the replacement of the meter if unpaid.

2. The notice dated nil Exhibit B10 is set aside.

3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3000 as compensation to the complainant.

The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.  If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.

        Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 25^th day of November, 2021

Smt. Bindhu R. Member                 Sd/-

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                 Sd/-

Appendix

Witness marked from the side of opposite party

Dw1 – Kurian Sebastian

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – Bill (cons. No. 1146351024958) dtd.12-04-17 issued by opposite party

A2 – Copy of proceedings dtd.12-04-17 issued by opposite party

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

B1 – Copy of meter changing register

B2 – Copy of letter dtd.16-12-15 from the Deputy Chief Engineer (SCM) to the

        Executive Engineer.

B3 – Copy of bill dtd.01-03-2016

B4 – Copy of bill dtd.01-04-2016

B5 –Copy of bill dtd.02-05-2016

B6 series – Copy of bills issued by opposite party (10 nos.)

B7 –Copy of meter reading register

B8 – Site mahazar dtd. 12-2-2020 (Con. No. 1146351024958)

B9 –Copy of bill dtd.12-04-2017

B10-Copy of proceedings of Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kottayam East.

                                                                                      By Order

                                                                     Senior Superintendent