Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum Northern Region, Kozhikode
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM NORTHERN REGION, KOZHIKODE. (Formed under Section 42(5) of Electricity Act 2003) Vydyuthibhavan, Gandhi Road, Kozhikode -673011 Telephone Number -0495 2367820 [email protected] PRESENT BEENA GOPINATH. S : CHAIRPERSON LEKHA RANI R : MEMBER II OP No.147/2019-20 PETITIONER : Sri. Sarathbabu P.N, Saradas Business(P) Ltd, Plot No.33A, Mayipadi P.O, Kinfra Industrial Park,Seethangoli,Kasaragod District-671124. RESPONDENTS : 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kasaragod, Kasaragod District-670002. 2. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Seethangoli, Kasaragod District-671124. ORDER Case of the Petitioner:- The petitioner, Sri. Sarathbabu P.N, a resident of Mayipadi, Seethangoli, Kasaragod district bearing the consumer No.1168189013844 complaints that an excess bill to the tune of Rs1042/- was issued along with regular bill. The petitioner argues what is the logic of issuing two bills in a month of March 2020 itself. On enquiry at the electrical section Seethangoli he received a lame excuse that the door was closed and reading could not be taken. The reason projected by the staff is said to be utterly false as the industry was never closed during the period from 01.2.2020 to 29.2.2020.The relief sought by the petitioner is to get justification from the part of the licensee that being a regular default less consumer, on what basis an extra bill was issued. Version by the Respondent: - The bill numbers 6818200300109 and 6818200304877 mentioned in the complaint amounting to Rs. 6391/- and Rs. 1042/- respectively are system generated bills based on the consumption recorded in the premise energy meter. The meter reading was not obtained for the bill cycle Feb 2020 with bill date 01/02/2020 due to premise lock condition. Whereas the readings were taken for the bill cycle January 2020 and March 2020. So the previous bill (for the month of February 2020) amounting to Rs. 5339/- was generated with system average as per billing rule applicable to ‘DL’ cases. But the consumption during these two billing cycles (Feb 2020 & March 2020) were higher than the system average 2 necessitating an excess billing. So the actual consumption apportioned to each billing cycle. The regular bill was generated based on proportionate actual consumption for the billing cycle (March 2020) amounting to Rs. 6391/-. A bill amounting to Rs.1042/- was generated for shortfall amount in previous bill (Feb 2020) considering consumption & TOD parameters. These two bills are recorded separately as per existing practice prevailing in KSEBL. Any type deficiency in service was not seen observed from supplier side. The consumer did not approach the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Seethangoli before complaining the matter to the Hon’ble Forum. It is learnt that the consumer was requested to shift the energy meter outside of the premise in order get free access to meter reader to take the reading. Additional statement by the respondent:- Hon’ble Forum wanted to furnish remarks on consumption pattern of consumer No.13844 for the last 10 months commencing from July 2019. The AE,ES Seethangoli reported that the consumption was calculated based on energy meter reading. Also ELCB installed is in working condition. On discussion with the consumer, it is understood that the industry has been restarted on 03.2.2020 and closed its operation on 21.3.2020 due to Covid-19 lockdown. The connected load of this connection is 37 KW. Out of these, machines namelyFilter M/c, Milk Classifier, Power pack m/c , Pre cutter, milk rethroat m/c, oil filling m/c etc comprising of 6.5 HP was not operated in the disputed period mentioned in the complaint. Centrifuge 1hp (1.30pm to 5pm) are the continuously running machines. Balance machines are working intermittently. They also added that company was on shutdown due to 3 pollution issues before Feb 2020. The company had been functioned well during 2018. The three employees were staying in the premises during lock down period. Now they commenced their operation after lock down, on 02.6.2020. It is CT connection having multiplication factor 20. The consumption during the bill cycles 01/18, 02/18, 03/18, 04/18 and 05/18 were 540KVAH, 380KVAH,500KVAH and 140KVAH respectively. Highest consumption recorded was 1080KVAH during 08/18. The monthly consumption during May 2020 was seen 180 units, even in lock down period. Considering the above, it seems that the main portion of the consumption in bill cycle 02/20 and 03/20 may be recorded during period from 01.2.20 to 29.2.20 and that of bill cycle 04/20 and 05/20 may be recorded during period from 01.3.2020 to 21.3.2020. But the billing procedure apportions the consumption for the concerned period equally. The consumption during dispute period is similsr to their consumption records during 2018. Their consumption pattern is in tune with operation of machinery as described by the consumer. Energy may not be wasted by earth leakage due to the functioning of ELCB. Discussion, analysis and findi ngs :- The hearing of the case was conducted on 03.6.2020 through call conference. Both the petitioner and respondent attended the hearing. It is conducted so on the basis of petitioner’s will and with intention to safeguard the alarming situation of threat of pandemic disease Covid-19. 4 Having considered all the documents submitted and the deliberations during the hearing, the Forum has come to the following conclusions leading to the decision:- The petitioner’s contention is that the monthly bill for March 2020 is issued as separate amounts i.e. Rs6391/- and Rs1042/- and it is exorbitant and disproportionate. The complaint is that the reading for the month of Feb 2020 was not taken by the respondent on the ground ‘door locked’ condition and issued bill for that month based on previous three month’s average. Actually the premises were open for the period from 01.2.2020 to 29.2.2020 and the statement of the respondent that reading could not be taken is in correct. The petitioner in the complaint states that their premises was not working till 31.1.2020 and worked in full swing from 01.2.2020 to 29.2.2020. According to the version of the respondent the bill for Feb 2020 was generated based on default program for average billing in case of ‘door locked’ consumers. The respondent could not produce any proof to show that the meter reader visited the premises for taking the reading on 01.2.2020. However the issue has no significance in this case as the petitioner also states that they were not working up to 31.1.2020. and hence the Forum observed that the consumption recorded on 01.3.2020 need not be apportioned equally to Jan/2020 and Feb/2020 and separate amounts arrived so, because for the month of January there is no functioning in the unit. 5 During hearing the petitioner complained that the consumption billed for succeeding months i.e. 05/2020 also shows separate amounts which is huge amount than the previous. The consumption pattern of the petitioner has been verified for the last 10 months and found that the consumption from 02/2020 onwards is comparatively higher than the previous months. Remarks of the respondent on the above observation is collected by the Forum which states that the company was on shut down due to pollution issues in the previous months and they restarted functioning only in Feb 2020. Hence the higher consumption recorded in Feb and March 2020 is found reasonable. Also the petitioner has not raised any complaint regarding suspicion in working of the meter and no chances of earthleakage is noticed as ELCB installed in the premises works properly. Here the cause of dispute is issuance of bill showing separate amount for Rs1042/- as door lock adjustment for 02/2020 other than the regular bill amount for Rs6391/- issued in 03/2020. The consumer challenges justification for that as their door was not closed from 01.2.2020. Regulation 110 of KESC 2014 states that, 1. The meter shall regularly be read once in every billing cycle and on special reading occasions. 2. The consumer shall extend all facilities to read the meter to the licensee or his employee or to the person duly authorised by the licensee for the purpose. 6 11. In case, for any reason, the meter is not read during a billing cycle, the licensee shall prepare a provisional bill based on the average consumption of previous three billing cycles when readings were taken. 13. The amount paid as per the provisional bill shall be adjusted against the bill raised on the basis of actual meter reading during the subsequent billing cycles. Hence the issue involved in this case as to whether the meter reading is taken and proper invoice issued by the respondent or not. Apparently the respondent failed to prove that they could not take the reading in Feb due to inaccessibility of meter as the door is locked in the premises. Provisional bill is seen issued in Feb which resulted in issue of bill in Mar 2020 showing door lock adjustment amount of Rs1042/- separately. It is pertinent to note that the facility of spot billing is introduced by the licensee with a view not to impose any extra burden to the consumers. Here in this case even though there is no extra burden to the consumer as the total amount of the bill is the actual bill amount for the energy consumption for the month of Feb 2020 itself as there was no work in the industry in Jan 2020, had the reading taken promptly in February, the separation of figures in bill and unnecessary apprehensions would have been avoided.