IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009. Present: Sri.K. Vijayakumaran, President. Adv. Ravi Susha, Member. R. Vijayakumar, Member. C.C.NO.278/2005 MRS. RADHA, PROPRIETOR, VENAD CONSTRUCTIONS, WEB WORLD EXPRESS, A FRANCHISEE OF RELIANCE, WEBSTORE PVT LTD., VARINJAM TOWERS, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-1. [P.SREEKUMARAN PILLAI, ADV., KOLLAM] .. COMPLAINANT V/S 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, CONTONMENT, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KADAPPAKKADA. O R D E R R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is filed to set aside the bill dated 15-7-05 bearing No. R.45590034010 amounting to Rs.54,790/-, for issuance of fresh bill and for compensation along with cost. The avernments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows. The complainant is running a business in the ground floor Varinjam Towers, Chinnakkkada under the name of Venad Connection, Web World Express holding Consumer No.4559011223. On 15-6-05 the complainant was served with the I bill for Rs.33,913/- by stating that the consumption comes to 3543 units for a single month. The complainant appealed and while enquiring the matter the 3rd opp.party promised that it may be due to the error apparent or fault of electronic meter which will be duly rectified. To avoid disconnection, the bill amount may be paid for the time being it will be refunded after taking a reasonable charge. The complainant was compelled to remit the amount. Subsequently on 18-7-05 the complainant received the II bill in which it is stated that if the complainant does not pay Rs.54,790/- before 27-7-05, the supply will be disconnected. This bill is pertaining to the alleged consumption of Electricity from 15-6-05 to 15-7-05. The consumption according to the opp.parties is 5892 units. The complainant did not consumed electricity as stated in the said bill. The bill amount is highly exorbitant, issued without any basis of legal statics. The complainant cannot exceed 700 units in one month even if she used all the apparatus at the maximum. The Electronic meter installed by the opp.parties is either highly faulty or the opp.party may have issued the exorbitant bill for some ulterior purpose. The electronic meter is required to be tested. The issuance of exorbitant bill and deficiency in service of the opp.parties resulted with mental pain, agony and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting relief. The opp.party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer of opp.parties. The name and address of the consumer under electric connection No.4559011223 is one Mr. Balachandran for Reliance Web Store Pvt. Ltd., Varinjam Towers, Residency Road, Kollam. As per wiring completion Report, the connected load in the premises is 12752 watts. The Tariff of the said Consumer is LT VII and using for commercial purpose. The consumers who are availed a connected load of 10KW and above are billed monthly. As per the register duly kept by the III opp.party the consumption of the above said consumer for one month is 3548 units. The consumer was billed as per existing rate for 3443 units as Rs.33,913/- which includes the fixed charges and meter rent. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, 3rd opp.party inspected the meter and on 29-6-05 in the presence of authorized persons of the complainant and found that the meter is free from any defect. The complainant’s consumption for the month of 7/05 is 5832 units III opp.party issued bill for Rs.54,790/- dated 18-7-05. The III opp.party bonafide issued the bill in atmost good faith for the actual consumption. The consumer is bound to pay the electric charges. The complainant has no cause of action against the opp.parties. The actions taken by the opp.parties are quite legal and with ample jurisdiction. The complaint is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with compensatory and cost. The complainant fled affidavit. PW1 examined. Ext.P1 to P4 Series marked. From the side of opp.party, DW1 examined. Heard both sides. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party? 2. Compensation and cost. Points I and II Admittedly the complainant had remitted the subsequent bill amounts and the complainant has no complaint about those bills. The Tariff was “LT VII commercial tariff and connected Load is 12752 also admitted by both parties. Even though the complainant has allegation about the I bill she had remitted the amount. No claim raised about the I bill in this complaint. The opp.parties contented that the complainant is not a Consumer of opp.parties and no consumer relation between the complainant and the opp.parties. it is not disputed that the complainant is occupying the premises. DW1 admitted in his deposition that occupier also is consumer. He has also admitted that the Venad connection is the Franchisee of Reliance Web Store and the proprietor of that concern is the complainant. Hence the argument of the opp.parties that the complainant is not a Consumer will not be sustained as the complainant is the occupier of the premises. The main contention of the complainant is that the meter was faulty. Admitted by the opp.parties that the complainant made a complaint before the opp.parties. It is also admitted that the III opp.party inspected the meter on 29-6-05, based upon that the complaint. As per the version of the opp.party there is no fault found in the meter and the meter is defect free one. The complainant is alleging that the meter was faulty. DW1 disposed that he has no knowledge about the persons who were inspected the meter. It is seen by him that the report was signed by the Sub-Engineer and Asst: Engineer who were in charge at that period. He has no knowledge as to whether the meter was opened and inspected or not and what was the reading at the time of inspection. Working hours of the institution also not known. Mahassor was not prepared. Even though he has stated that the apparatus used in the institution were mentioned in the report and the report was kept in the file it was not produced before the Forum. He has also admitted that faults were found in electrical meters occasionally and it would be rectified. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that even if the whole apparatus in the premises are allowed to work continuosly at the maximum all along the working hours it would not exceed 700 units per month. That point was not challenged by the opp.parties. As per repair, bills are seen regularized and Ext.P3 series (2) and Ext.P4 (8) bills issued subsequently would go to show the real nature of consumption. On a perusal of the documents we find that average consumption and charges were considerably very lower than the disputed period. The opp.parties had asserted that they have inspected the meter and found no fault. But the opp.parties had not asserted whether they have tested using the standard reference meter as specified in Section 42(3) of Regulation of Kerala Electricity supply code, 2005. The meter was not tested by the Electrical Inspector who is the competent authority to say whether the meter is faulty or not. The inspection report prepared by opp.party was also produced. No Mahassor was also prepared by the opp.party. Hence opp.party fails to prove their contentions. For all that has been discussed above, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. The points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed. The bill dated 15-7-05 bearing No R45590034010 amounting Rs.54,790/- is quashed hereby. The opp.parties are directed to issue fresh bill based on the average consumption in the succeeding six months of the alleged bill period. The opp.parties are further directed to pay compensation Rs.2000/- and cost Rs.1500/- to the complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009. INDEX List of witnesses for the complainant PW1-Naresh Kumar List of documents for the complainant Ext.P1-Power of attorney Ext.P2-Demand and disconnection notice (2 in number) Ext.P3-Bills (2 in number) Ext.P4-Bills ( 8 in number) List of witnesses for the opp.party DW1- Raj Mohan | 
