- 1 –

CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD- SOUTHERN REGION, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, ------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 31 st October 2017

OP No.480/2017

Between

Petitioner: Sri. Josekumar.R, Adith Bhavan, Mylakkadu 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 consumer under Electrical Section, Kottiyam with the Consumer No.22867. The petitioner was aggrieved by a short assessment for Rs.44,937/- issued by the respondent on 10/07/2017. The petitioner contented that no bills were received amounting more than Rs.1,450/-. He filed complaint to the section office regarding the impugned bill. Then a parallel meter was connected with the disputed energy meter on 14/7/2017 and it is seen that the reading recorded in both the meters were same. The petitioner claims that on testing of the wiring of the premises by a wire man, no irregularities were found. - 2 –

Hence the petitioner contented that the over reading may be due to lightening occurred in the last rainy season. He argued that he is incapable of paying this huge amount. Hence he prays to quash the impugned bill. 2. The opposite party was filed a version as follows. The complainant is a registered consumer with Consumer No.22867 and connected load 3886 watts under the Electrical Section, Kottiyam. The petitioner has been issued the bill for Rs.44,598/- for the month of 7/2017 due to the huge consumption of 5397 units. On receipt of a complaint from the consumer regarding abnormal hike in the bill amount, the accuracy of old meter alleged to be faulty was checked by using a parallel meter on 14/7/2017. The consumption recorded in the existing meter and parallel meter during the period of five days was 15 units. The respondent argued that the officials who installed the parallel meter reported that they experienced the presence of earth leakage in a pronounced manner at the time of fitting the parallel meter. The respondent reached to the conclusion that the abnormal hike in reading was on account of the spillage of energy due to the earth leakage. 3. The case was posted for hearing on 11/10/2017. Both the petitioner and the respondent were present and heard the matter in detail. 4. On going through the petition and other documents in the file, it is seen that the petitioner was aggrieved by exorbitant bill of Rs.44,598/- for the month of 7/2017 for the consumption of 5397 units. During hearing the petitioner contented that this abnormal consumption in 7/2017 may be due to lightening during the last rainy season. But the respondent argued that the disputed meter was tested with a parallel meter and found that both meters showed same reading. The officials from KSEB Ltd experienced earth leakage at the time of fitting the parallel meter. Hence - 3 –

the respondent contented that the hike in consumption in 7/2017 was due to the earth leakage at the premises of the petitioner. 5. On perusal of the documents in the file, the forum found that the consumption in the premises of the petitioner in 7/2017 was abnormal compared to the previous consumption of the petitioner. The disputed meter was tested with a parallel meter and found that the reading in both meters were same and hence the meter installed in the premises was in good condition. The bill issued by the respondent dated on 10/7/2017 was based on the energy recorded in the meter. Since the connected load of the premises is 3886 watts only, there is no doubt that the energy consumption recorded in 7/2017 is not to the actual usage of energy by the consumer. The petitioner’s statement that there occurred rain and lightening in the locality of the premises of the petitioner during that period. As per the statement, the excess reading may be due to a transient error in the energy meter in lightening. The forum found that the excess reading during 7/2017 was due to natural calamity. Moreover the respondent has not produced any evidence to prove that, the over reading is due to earth leakage in the premises of the petitioner. Hence the excess bill issued during 7/2017 is not genuine and sustainable and to revise the bill by taking average consumption of previous three billing cycles. 6. Considering the above facts and evidence of the case, the forum dispose this case with the following orders. I. The excess bill issued by the respondent dated 10/7/2017 for Rs.44,937/- is quashed. II. To issue the revised bill for 7/2017 by taking average consumption of previous three billing cycles. III. 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 MEMBER III MEMBER II CHAIRPERSON ADVOCATE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER

Forwarded

CHAIRPERSON (DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER) CGRF (SOUTH), KOTTARAKKARA PIN – 691 506

No: CGRF/KTR/OP.No.480/2017/ 6869 / Date: 31/10/2017

Delivered to:

1. Sri. Josekumar.R,Adith Bhavan,Mylakkadu P.O., Kottiyam, Kollam . 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, . ______Office: CGRF(S), Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Kottarakkara, Pin – 691 506 Web site: cgrf.kseb.in E- mail: [email protected] , Phone: 0474 – 2451300