Kerala

Idukki

CC/57/2018

Mini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst Exe Enginner KSEB - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :22/03/18

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of November 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 57/2018

Between

Complainant : Mini, W/o Abraham,

Puthoor House,

Vathykudy Village, Perumthotty Kara,

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Assistant Engineer,

KSEB, Electrical Section, Murickassery.

2 . The Assistant Executive Engineer,

KSEB Office, Vazhathopu, Idukki.

3 . The Secretary,

KSEB Vydhuthy Bhavan,

Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(Whole by Adv: Lissy M.M.)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

The complainant is conducting a cardamom drying unit and having electricity connection under LT 4A Tariff. The consumer number is 11507. In the year 2011 the single phase electric connection of the unit was changed to three phase connection for the smooth functioning of the above said unit. The complainant remitting the electricity charge without any defaulted from the date of its connection.

 

While so, in the month of October 2017, complainant received a notice from the first opposite party stating that complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.18,604/- by way of electricity charges during the period from 6/2013 to

(Cont.....2)

-2-

8/2014 due to the reason of non-calculation of bill amount by multiplying multiplication factor of 10, for this period. Immediately after the receipt of this notice complainant approached the first opposite party, submitted that she remitted all the pending bills. Again on 15/01/18, complainant received another notice from the first opposite party directing her to pay the additional bill amount, otherwise they will disconnect the power supply of the above said connection. Thereafter again on 03/03/18, complainant received another notice from the first opposite party directing her to pay Rs.19,265 on or before 21/03/18, other they will constrained to disconnect the power supply.

 

The complainant further averred that the bills issued by the opposite parties is having no legal entity and having no basis and if it is caused only of the fault from the part of the first opposite party's office and the complainant is not liable to pay the amount. Issuing such bills are illegal and it is the clear instance of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant filed this petition for allowing the relief such as to direct the opposite parties to cancel the above said notice, and also restrained the opposite parties from disconnecting the power supply of the above said electric connection and further direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version contenting that the purpose of service connection is industrial and is provided with a TOD energy meter. Peculiarity of this meter is that the consumption of 24 hours is divided into three zones. First zone is from 6.00 am to 6.00 pm having normal rate and second zone is from 6.00 pm to 10.pm which charges 1.2 times than that of normal rate and third zone from 10.00 pm to 06.00 am is off peak which charges only 80% of the normal rate.

 

Opposite parties further contented that the cardamom drier unit consumes more current as it uses heating coils. The heavy current cannot withstand by the ordinary energy meter. Hence the opposite parties use current transformer (CT) operated energy meter. CT means it is a step down current transformer which reduces 5 times to 40 times of primary current.(Eg. 50/5A, 100/5A, 200/5A, 400/5A etc.). Here the opposite parties used CT having a CT ratio of 50/5A. Which means when 5A current is flows through secondary, ie, its multiplication

(Cont.....3)

-3-

factor is 10(50/5=10 ). The secondary terminal is connected to the meter. So the reading shown in the meter is only 1/10^th of the actual reading. To get the correct reading we have to multiply the meter reading by 10.

 

opposite parties further contented that in this case multiplication factor 10 is not considered while calculating the bills of petitioner during the period from 06/2013 to 08/2014, which resulted in an under assessment of 90% of actual consumption during the period 06/2013 to 08/2014.

 

Further stated that TOD billing facility was not available in the billing software of KSEBL during that period. Bill amount enters against consumer in the billing software after calculating the bill manually. But the value arrived after multiplying with factor 10 had not been taken in to consideration while calculating bill manually.

 

Opposite parties further contented that the consumption of electricity during disputed period was almost identical with corresponding months of prior and later years of disputed period. But the bill amount was lesser during the disputed period. This was due to the calculation of bill without the application of multiplication factor.

 

Opposite parties further contented that regulation 152 of the supply code 2014, which governs generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in Kerala, clearly authorize the opposite parties to realize any amount lost by non-application of multiplication factor.

 

Opposite parties further contented that as per clause 37(5) of KSEB terms and conditions of supply code 2005, and clause 24(5) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 the KSEB is well within its authority in demanding the short assessment amount from its consumers. The short assessment disputed bill in the case, due to non application of multiplication factor is quite lawful as per the above rule and should be admitted and it should be remitted, since the short assessment bill issued for the actual consumption done by the petitioner during the disputed period. Opposite parties further contented that the complainant was willing to remit the disputed bill amount at one stage, but later on some false

(Cont.....4)

-4-

advise, she became reluctant to remit the amount and proceeded with this complainant. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite parties.

 

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents. Such as copy of the disconnection notices and copy of details of bills are marked as Ext.P1 series.

 

From the opposite parties side, Assistant Engineer of the first opposite party examined as DW1, Ext.R1 to Ext.R4 were marked. Ext.R1 is demand notice having No.BB/2017-18/15/01/2018, Ext.R2 is the disconnection notice dated 03/03/18, Ext.R3 is the demand legal notice dated 30/04/18, Ext.R4 is the details of current charge of the complainant's electric connection.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the complainant and counsel of opposite parties and had gone through records. It is an admitted fact that the complainant using the disputed electrical connection for her business purpose from 2009 onwards. In the year 2011, the electricity board authority changed the single phase connection to three phase and installed TOD meter and the complainant is paying the electricity charges regularly as per the bills issued by the opposite parties periodically. No dispute has been arised till the issuance of disputed bill dated 15/01/18 for an amount of Rs.18,604/-.

 

The version of the opposite parties in this regard is that TOD billing facility was not available in billing software or KSEB Ltd. during that period. Bill amount enters against consumer in the billing software after calculating the bill manually. But the values arrived, after multiplying with the factor '10' had not been taken into consideration while calculating bill manually.

 

(Cont.....5)

 

-5-

 

The learned counsel of the opposite parties further pointed out that in this case multiplication factor 10 is not considered while calculating the bills of the complainant during the period from 06/2013 to 08/2014, which resulted in an under assessment of 90% of actual consumption during the period 06/2013 to 08/2014. This error in calculating the bill and the discrepancies are found out by the audit wing of the KSEB. Hence the complainant is liable to remit the amount without raising any objection.

 

In this case on perusing the demand notice and disconnection notice, it is seen that the arrears amount which is demanded by the opposite parties for the period from 06/2013 to 08/2014 ie, for a total period of 14 months. This anomaly was found our only in the year 2018 and the opposite parties issued an assessment bill for Rs.18,604/- dated 15/01/18. Actually this was due to the fault from the part of the opposite parties in calculating the electricity charges. Opposite parties was totally ignorant about the matter till the audit wing found out the discrepancies.

 

Since the non- calculating the electrical charge as per the norms of the KSEB is a gross negligence on their part, demanding a huge amount in lump sum to the consumer on a fine morning is a shock to the consumer and the excuses for the short coming of the employees of the opposite parties cannot be considered.

 

It is an admitted fact that the issuance of such a bill is the after effect of the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties is also liable to bear the risk due to the dereliction of duty happened on the part of their staff. Hence the liability of the impugned bill dated 15/01/18 is apportioned upon the complainant and the opposite parties.

 

On the basis of above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that the complaint allowed in part. Complainant is directed to pay the half of the Ext.P1 bill amount of Rs.18,604/- ie Rs.9,302/- to the opposite parties, if she paid any amount as per the direction of the Forum, she shall pay the amount after deducting it from Rs.9,302/- within 30 from the date of receipt of the copy of this

(Cont.....6)

 

-6-

 

order. The liability of the balance amount of the above said bill shall bear by the opposite parties themselves. No order to costs or compensation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Nooja M.S.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1(s) - Copy of the disconnection notices and copy of details of bills.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 – The demand notice having No.BB/2017-18/15/01/2018

Ext.R2 -The disconnection notice dated 03/03/18

Ext.R3 -The demand legal notice dated 30/04/18

Ext.R4 -The details of current charge of the complainant's electric connection.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT