CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD- SOUTHERN REGION, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KOTTARAKKARA ------Present: 1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
- 1 – CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD- SOUTHERN REGION, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, KOTTARAKKARA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present: 1. Sri. V.K. Mani, Deputy Chief Engineer, Chairperson 2. Sri. Suresh.N, Executive Engineer, Member II 3. Sri. A.R Vijayasundaran, Advocate, Member III Tuesday 27 th February 2018 OP No.561/2017 Between Petitioner: Sri. Manoj, Karuvazhathu Thodiyil, Sivan Nada Padinjattathu, Vadakke Mylakkadu, Kottiyam P.O. And Respondent: The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kottiyam. ORDER 1. Grievance of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is a domestic consumer under Electrical Section, Kottiyam. The petitioner was aggrieved by the short assessment bill amounting to Rs.8,520/- alleging meter faulty from 5/2013 to 3/2015. The petitioner argued that as the premises was not in use from August 2013 and he made request to replace the faulty meter to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kottiyam. Even though he made repeated - 2 – requests with the issue, no positive steps have been taken to redress his grievance. The petitioner contented that if the meter became faulty, it would be respondent’s responsibility to replace the meter within the time limit as per the Electricity Act. Hence it is illegal and unjustifiable to short assess for the faulty period based on the average of consumption after meter change. Hence he prays to redress his grievance 2. The respondent filed a version as follows. The complainant is Sri. Manoj bearing Consumer No.20279 with the registered connected load of 300 watts under Electrical Section, Kottiyam. The respondent stated that the meter of the consumer became faulty from 5/2013 to 3/2015. Hence the respondent issued a short assessment bill amounting to Rs.8,520/- to the petitioner in accordance with the observation contained in the audit report and as per Reg.134 (1) of Supply Code, 2014 in order to compensate the revenue loss sustained to the KSEB Ltd. The respondent stated that the average consumption pertaining to the three billing cycles prior to meter faulty was 100 units in which the petitioner was charged during faulty period. The meter was changed on 17/4/2015 and the average consumption of three billing cycles after meter change was 290.33 units. The respondent contented that the alleged bill was issued for mitigating the short fall occurred in the collection of energy charge from the petitioner. Hence the respondent prays the Forum to dismiss the petition. 3. The case was posted for hearing on 17/2/2018. The petitioner was present and the respondent was absent and heard the matter in detail. - 3 – 4. On going through the petition and other documents in the file, it is seen that the case was with regard to the short assessment bill of Rs.8,520/- issued to the petitioner alleging meter faulty during the period from 5/2013 to 3/2015. The petitioner contented that if the energy meter was faulty, it is responsibility of the respondent to change the meter in time as per the Electricity Act. It is also illegal and unjustifiable to reassess the meter faulty period based on the average consumption after the replacement of meter. The respondent stated that the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was faulty. During the faulty period from 5/2013 to 3/2015 bills were issued to the petitioner based on the average consumption of 100 units pertaining to a period of past three billing cycles. But after meter change on 17/4/2015 the average consumption of three billing cycles became 290 units. During the RAO audit it was observed that there occurred short fall in the collection of electricity charge during the period from 5/2013 to 3/2015. Hence the petitioner was issued short assessment bill based on the average consumption of 290 units as per Reg.134(1) of Supply Code, 2014. 5. On perusing the documents in the file, it is seen that during the meter faulty period from 5/2013 to 3/2015 bills were issued for an average consumption of 100 units which was the average consumption for the previous three billing cycles. The audit by the Regional Audit Wing found out that after meter change the average consumption rose to 290 units. So the respondent revised the bill during the above period based on the average consumption 290 units and issued a short assessment bill issued to the petitioner. - 4 – 6. The Forum found that as per Reg.125(1) of Supply Code, 2014 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. 7. In this case the respondent issued the bills during the faulty period based on the average consumption of the past three billing cycles prior to the meter became faulty. Moreover the Forum found that the meter installed in the premises was alleged faulty for two years. As per Reg.125(2) of Supply Code,2014 average consumption can be given for maximum of two billing cycles within this time the licensee shall replace the defective or damaged meter with a correct meter. In this case average bills were issued for a period of two years and changed the faulty meter only on 17/4/2015. The faulty meter was not tested and no test report was produced to establish the faulty status of the meter. Hence it is unjust and improper to issue short assessment bill based on the average consumption after the replacement of meter. So the short assessment bill issued by the respondent is not sustainable. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, the Forum dispose the case with the following orders. I. The short assessment bill issued by the respondent for Rs.8,520/- is quashed. II. No order as to cost. - 5 – If the petitioner is not satisfied with the above order of this Forum, he is at liberty to prefer appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The address of the Electricity Ombudsman is furnished below. State Electricity Ombudsman, Charangattu Bhavan, Building No.34/895, Mamangalam - Anchumana Road, Edappally, Kochi – 682 024, Ph: 0484 - 2346488. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- A.R VIJAYASUNDARAN SURESH.N V.K. MANI ADVOCATE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINE ER MEMBER III MEMBER II CHAIRPERSON Forwarded CHAIRPERSON (DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER) No: CGRF/KTR/OP.No.561/2017/ 120 Date: 27/2/2018. Delivered to: 1. Sri. Manoj,Karuvazhathu Thodiyil, Sivan Nada Padinjattathu, Vadakke Mylakkadu, Kottiyam P.O. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, K.S.E. Board Ltd, Kottiyam. Copy to:- 1. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kollam. 2. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Chathannoor. _______________________________________________________ Office: CGRF(S), Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Kottarakkara, Pin – 691 506 Web site: cgrf.kseb.in E- mail: [email protected] , Phone: 0474 – 2451300 .