1

Office of the Deputy Chief Engineer/Chairperson, Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum (South), Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Phone: 0474-2060220

No. CGRF/KTR/OP.No.301/2008 Dated. .11. 2008.

To The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, K.S.E Board, .

Sir,

Sub: - Releasing of order of disposal of OP.No.301/2008.

Ref: - B.O (FB) No.585/2006 (LA.II/1173/2006) dated 25.2.2006.

……

Enclosed the order of disposal of petition filed by Sri.R.Sadasivan in O.P.No.301/08 for further action.

Yours faithfully,

DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CHAIRPERSON, CGRF (SOUTH)

Copy to:-

1. Sri.R.Sadasivan, Thevarupoika Veedu, Edakkidom.P.O, , .

2. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kottarakkara

3. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kundara.

4. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Ezhukone. 2

CONSUMERS GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM (SOUTH), KOTTARAKKARA

Present: 1. Sri.S.Ramabhadran, Deputy Chief Engineer, Chairperson, CGRF (South), Kottarakkara.

2. Sri.K.Sanal Kumar, Executive Engineer, Regional Stores Division, Kundara and Member, CGRF (South).

Monday the 10th day of November 2008

OP.No.301/2008

Between Petitioner: Sri.R.Sadasivan, Thevarupoika Veedu, Edakkidom P.O, Ezhukone, Kollam.

And

Respondent: The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kundara.

ORDER

Forum received a petition drawn by Sri.R.Sadasivan complaining about amount realized in excess of spot bill issued on 16.10.08. Forum allowed the petition and sought a detailed statement during the hearing on 10.11.2008. The petitioner is a domestic consumer bearing consumer No.4709 under Electrical Section, Ezhukone and has been paying electricity bills regularly as per the invoices issued to him. On 23.10.08 when the petitioner turned up to section office for remitting the bill amount as per the spot bill issued to him on 16.10.08, he was told that same arrears was outstanding against him and the total amount due is Rs.539/-as against spot bill amount of Rs.421/-. He was forced to remit the amount of Rs.539/-. On enquiry with the section office he was not given a satisfactory explanation as to how the arrear as above have become outstanding against him. No body was willing to hear him and to receive his complaint. He called on the section office on 23rd and 24th instant for submitting application before the Assistant Engineer, but to no avail. The petitioner prays before the Forum to pass orders to refund the excess amount realized from him. 3

While considering the petition on 10.11.2008 Sri.Alexander Vaidyan, senior Superintendent for an behalf of the opposite party appeared before the Forum and submitted his statement as below. There occurred an error in the spot bill for 8/08 issued by the meter reader on 14.8.08. The previous reading and the current readings for the bill were 3955 and 4120 respectively and the consumption of energy for billing was 165 units. But the meter reader has wrongly noted it as 125 units, and raised the bill amount of Rs.211 (less Rs.3/- for adjusting interest on CD) corresponding to 125 units, as against a demand for Rs.295/- (less Rs.3/-) for the actual consumption of 165 units. The consumer remitted the bill amount of Rs.208/- as per the spot bill issued by he meter reader, in the Akshaya collection centre on 21.08.08. Due to the error in billing as above the consumer remain under charged to an extent of Rs.84/-. The meter reader failed to incorporate this short assessment in the next spot bill issued on 16.10.08. On 23.10.08, when the petitioner turned up to the section office for remitting the bill for 10/08, he was compelled to remit, Rs.84/- in addition to the bill amount of Rs.421/- towards short assessment, Rs.30/- as AF and Rs.4/- as surcharge, the total amount being Rs.539/-. The Senior Superintendent has agreed to make refund of the Rs.30/- + Rs.4/- realized towards reconnection fee and surcharge respectively. Findings:- 1. It is admitted by the respondent that an error in billing and consequent under charging has occurred in the spot bill issued on 14.08.08. The method adopted for rectifying the error and under charging is not justifiable. The section authorities has arbitrarily revised bill in the office records subsequently without intimating the consumer. The petitioner came to know about the under charging only when he turned up to remit the next regular bill on 23.10.08. 2. The petitioner was compelled to remit the short assessment portion for 8/08 (amounting to Rs.84/-) without any notice or invoice, and more distressing is that he was even forced to remit the reconnection fee of Rs.30/- + Rs.4/- as surcharge for no fault of his. This is quite unfair, and is violation of the relevant regulation /rules in respect of billing and realizing electricity charges under clause 21, 22 and 24 of Supply Code 2005, and amounts to deficiency of service. 3. It is always open to the respondent to rectify the mistake in charging a consumer and to make good the under charging, if any, by issuing a revised bill in place of the incorrect bill, or by issuing a short assessment bill for recovering the 4 under charging by a separate bill, or it can be recovered as a separate item in subsequent regular bill, as per the provisions under clause 24(5) of Supply Code 2005. The billing authorities have miserably failed to act accordingly. 4. It is obvious that the computer system generates the demand as per the actual consumption on feeding the data required for billing. It comes to the notice of the billing staff then and there, any mistake/discrepancies with respect to the spot bill issued. Immediately the revised demand/invoice could have been arranged to be delivered to the consumer. If this could not be arranged due to some reason or other, the demand generated by the computer should have been modified or corrected to make the net amount equal to the spot bill amount by giving a debit for an amount equal to the short assessment which could have been subsequently adjusted by issuing separate bill or recovering as a separate item in the subsequent bill. Had the procedure as above been adopted, the mode of recovery would have been just and fair, leaving no room for any complaint from or inconvenience to the consumer. The billing authorities could have also consulted with the system administrators concerned for sorting out similar problems and to find away out. The section authorities also failed to hear the petitioner on his grievances, and to explain the circumstances under which he was forced to remit the amount in excess of the bill issued to him. In view of the above, the Forum comes to the conclusion that a deficiency of service was meted out to the petitioner, by realizing the electricity charges and other miscellaneous charges (R/F and S/C), without proper invoices. In the result the Forum orders to refund the amount of Reconnection Fee (Rs.30/-) and the surcharge (Rs.4/-) realized from the petitioner, and to award Rs.50/- as cost to the petitioner. The cost shall be recovered from the staff concerned responsible for not arranging and delivering the revised bill. The petition stands disposed as above.

K. SANAL KUMAR, S.RAMABHADRAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER/CHAIRPERSON MEMBER, CGRF (SOUTH)

5

* 6