• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

- 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 Thursday 14 th June 2018 OP No.53/2018 Between Petitioner: Sri.B.J. Thomas, Kochupilamoodu, Near VLC, Beach Road, Kollam. And Respondent: The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kollam. ORDER 1. Grievance of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is a consumer under Electrical Section, Cantonment Kollam with Consumer No.360 under LT VIIA tariff . He was aggrieved by a exorbitant bill of Rs.12,754/- in 9/2017 for the consumption of 1103 units. The petitioner contented that there was a humming sound in the meter and hence the meter was faulty. After his complaint was received two linemen came and checked and banged the energy meter. The - 2 – petitioner argued that the banging rectified the problem because the humming sound immediately stopped. He remitted Rs.200/- for installing a parallel meter to check the accuracy of the meter. But he has not got any reply in writing or through phone or verbally. The connected load of the premises is 6 KW but as per consumption pattern he was not using half of it. He also stated that his office works from 9 am to 6 pm and the equipments used are 4 CPU’s with LED monitors and one printer. Hence he prays the Forum to cancel the impugned bill. 2. The respondent filed a version as follows. The respondent filed a version stating that the employees of the KSEB Ltd have inspected the premises of the petitioner based on complaint filed and ensured that the energy meter erected in the premises is functioning without any defects. The accuracy of the energy meter installed in the premises was tested with a parallel meter and it was ensured that the meter is recording energy consumed without any defects. The energy consumed in the premises recorded in the meter is 1103 units in 9/2017. The consumer was billed based on the above consumption. On inspecting the premises it was ensured that there was no defects in the installations of the licensee up to the metering terminal and cutout. The petitioner is yet to exercise the option for the detailed testing of the meter on remitting the required fees. Hence the respondent contented that the KSEB Ltd bound to bill the consumer on the basis of the recording in the energy meter for the energy actually consumed in the premises. 3. The case was posted for hearing on 25/05/2018 and 12/6/2018. The petitioner was absent and the respondent was present and heard the matter. - 3 – 4. On going through the documents in the file, the case was with regard to the exorbitant bill of Rs.12,754/- issued by the respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner contented that their bimonthly consumption is below 250 units. But in 9/2017 he was issued bimonthly bill for the consumption of 1103 units. The petitioner stated in the petition that there was a humming sound in the meter and hence the meter was faulty. 5. The respondent argued that the energy consumed in the premises recorded in the meter is 1103 units in 9/2017. The consumer was billed on the basis of recorded consumption. The disputed meter was tested with a parallel meter and found that the meter working properly. 6. On perusal of the petition and other documents in the file, it is found that the petitioner is aggrieved by the exorbitant bill of Rs.12,754/- issued to the petitioner in 9/2017. The Forum found that the bill issued to the petitioner in 9/2017 was abnormal compared to the previous consumption of the petitioner. The petitioner argued that some defects was noticed in the meter. But the respondent contented that the meter installed in the premises was tested with a parallel meter and found consumptions recorded in two meters were same and hence the meter was good. 7. In this case the Forum found that the meter was tested with a parallel meter and was found good. So the petitioner is liable to pay the bill. 8. Considering the above facts and evidence of this case, the Forum dispose the case accordingly. No order as to cost. - 4 – 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 ENGINEER MEMBER III MEMBER II CHAIRPERSON Forwarded CHAIRPERSON (DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER) No: CGRF/KTR/OP.No.53/2018/ 323 Dated: 14/06/2018. Delivered to: 1. Sri.B.J. Thomas, Kochupilamoodu, Near VLC, Beach Road, Kollam. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, K.S.E. Board Ltd, Kollam. Copy to:- 1. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kollam. 2. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kollam. _________________________________________________________________ Office: CGRF(S), Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Kottarakkara, Pin – 691 506 Web site: cgrf.kseb.in E- mail: [email protected] , Phone: 0474 – 2451300 .

Load more

  4

Copy Link