1

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

(Incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956)
CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM,
CENTRAL REGION, Power House Building, Cemetherymukku Jn.,ERNAKULAM, Cochin -
18, Website : cgrf.kseb.in, Email : cgrf.ekm@gmail.com Phone:0484-2394288,
CUG No. 9496008719

Present (1) Shri. Lorance. K.M Chairperson

(2) Shri. Silvester Peter P Member
(3) Shri. Jefrin Manuel Member

Petitioner Sri. M.K. Dinesan

Mavummoottil
Changampuzha Nagar P.O.
Thrikkakkara
Pin – 682 033.

Respondent 1) The Asst. Exe. Engineer

Electrical Sub Division
Kalamaserry

2)
The Assistant Engineer
Electrical Section
Thevakkal
=========================================================
No.CGRF-CR/Comp. 163 /2013-14 Date: 13/5/2014

ORDER

Background of the case

The petitioner, Sri. M K Dinesan is a domestic consumer with

Consumer No. 12454 under Electrical Section Thevakkal. On 23/10/2013 the
consumer was issued with a short assessment bill for meter faulty period
from 12/2010 to 03/2013 amounting to Rs.1,715/-. Aggrieved by this,
petitioner approached this Forum on 23/11/2013.

Subsequently, statement of facts was called for and the same was
submitted by the respondent on 16/01/2014. The Forum accorded an
opportunity to hear from the petitioner and respondent on 27/03/2014 and
both the parties were present for the same.
 2

Argument of the Petitioner:

The petitioner stated that his house with consumer number 12454 has
been let out for rent for the last few years. On finding the energy meter to be
faulty petitioner had approached the respondents many times to get the same
replaced. But the meter was changed only in 05/2013 after 2years of fault.
But now the respondent has issued a bill amounting to Rs.1,715/- claiming
the same to be short assessment for the period from 12/10 to 03/13.
Petitioner submitted that during the mentioned period the house was
occupied by a family consisting of husband and wife only. From 01/04/2013
onwards, the building has been let out to another family consisting of four
members. Now the respondent has done a short assessment for a period
occupied by the previous tenants based on the comparatively higher
consumption of the new tenants. Petitioner termed the said action as
unjustifiable and malicious and prayed to cancel the same.

The respondent’s Version:

The respondent stated that petitioner’s energy meter became sluggish

from 12/2010 to 03/2013. The meter could be replaced with a proper one
only on 04/05/13 owing to acute shortage of meters. The previous bimonthly
average consumption for 6 months from 06/10 to 10/10 comes to 176 units.
But the consumer was not charged based on the correct average in the regular
bills issued during the period from 12/10 TO 03/13. When this anomaly was
detected by the audit wing, short assessment was done for the said faulty
period amounting to Rs.1,715/- as per section 24(5) of the Supply Code
2005.

The judgment of Honorable High Court in WP© No.90/2009 clearly

states that an amount becomes first due only when the bill is issued. In
another judgment on WA No. 211/2012, the Honorable Court made it clear
that the normal period of limitation is not applicable in the case of electricity
 3

charges and water charges. Hence time limitation as per section 56(2) of the
Act 2003 is not applicable in the present case. The respondent submitted that
the assessment made is in order and prayed to sustain the same.

Analysis and findings:

Having examined the petition in detail, and the statement of facts of the
respondent, considering all the facts and circumstances in detail, and perusing
all the documents of both sides, the Forum comes to the following observations,
conclusions and decisions thereof.

1) The energy meter of the petitioner was termed as faulty by the

respondent on 04/07/2011.
2) The faulty meter was changed only on 04/05/13.
3) The respondents charged this consumer for an average of 124 units
(bimonthly) for the faulty period from 04/07/11 to 04/03/13.
4) There was no dispute between the petitioner and the respondent for the
entire faulty period for 20 months.
5) Short assessment bill for Rs.1,715/- was issued to the consumer on
23/10/13 based on an inspection report by the RAO.
6) Now, the respondent says that the meter was sluggish from 12/10 and
decided to reassess the bills from 12/10 to 03/13 (15 bills) based on the
average consumption for the period from 06/10 to 10/10.
7) The 15 bills under this period 12/10 to 03/13 were revised based on the
new average of 176 units.

According to Section 55 of IE Act; no licensee shall supply electricity, after

10/06/2005, except through installation of a correct meter in accordance with
the regulations to be made in this behalf by the Central Electricity Authority.

According to Clause 19(2) of Supply Code 2005 if the Licensee is unable

to base a bill on meter reading due to its non recording or malfunctioning, the
Licensee shall issue a bill based on the previous six months average
consumption. In such cases the meter shall be replaced within one month.
 4

According to section 33(2) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, if

the Board is unable to raise a bill on meter reading due to its non recording or
malfunctioning, the Board shall issue a bill based on the previous six months
average consumption. In such cases the meter shall be replaced within one
month.

• On noticing the faulty condition of the meter on 04/07/11, the

respondent had charged for an average of 124 units for the faulty
period of two months (10/05/11 to 04/07/11) as per the Supply Code,
but did not replace the faulty meter within one month. Instead of
replacing the meter, respondent continued the charging of average
consumption (124 units) for the faulty period from 07/11 to 03/13 due
to the non availability of meter.
• After the inspection of RAO, the respondent changed the above
decision and decided to charge this consumer for an average of 176
units for the period 12/10 to 03/13 saying that the healthy
consumption of this consumer was 193 units, 157 units and 177 units
for 06/10, 08/10 and 12/10 respectively (average 176 units).

Forum observed the following

1) The Supply Code, 2005 allows the respondent to charge the consumer
with the average of previous six months for the faulty period with the
condition that the meter should be replaced within one month.
2) The Supply Code does not mention anything about extending of this
practice of charging average for the entire faulty period based on the
reason of non availability of meter.
3) But the respondent has extended this method of charging for average for
the entire faulty period of 07/11 to 03/13 (i.e. for 20 months).
4) Consumer has not disputed the bills issued during the above period.
5) The respondent re-decided to charge the consumer for 176 units for a
period 12/10 to 03/13 (i.e. for 29 months).
 5

Implementation of a practice not mentioned in the supply code was in

force for the entire faulty period without any objection from both the parties.
The action of assessing this consumer by the respondent for an average of 124
units was not objected by the consumer for the disputed period. This may be
due to the awareness of the consumer that the average units insisted by the
respondent commensurate with the petitioner’s consumption. This ‘deemed
agreement’ was prevailing during the entire disputed period.

The respondent rectified this condition by replacing the faulty meter with a
good one and the petitioner has accepted the same.

The respondent had taken a clear action as per the Supply Code 2005
immediately after noticing the faulty condition of the meter. The respondent
decided to charge the petitioner for 124 units during the period. The respondent
noticed this action as wrong only after a long period of more than 2 years, that
too based on presumption. This time they decided to charge this consumer for
176 units for nearly 29 months. A presumption need not be correct without
supporting documents to prove it.

Even though the RAO made an assessment in favor of the respondent, it has
no legal standing as per the act. This assessment should have been made by the
respondent when the fault was detected so that the dispute could have been
solved then and there. Here the respondents not only resorted to a practice not
mentioned in any act or rule but also reassessed the consumer by mere
presumption. Had the respondents adopted the average assessment of 176 units
bimonthly, in the beginning itself, the petitioner could have self assessed about
the consumption and challenged, if the said average does not commensurate
with the consumption. Re-assessing an action already taken is not justifiable and
sustainable.

Further, section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, states that ‘no sum
due from any consumer shall be recovered after a period of 2 years unless such
sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges’. Even if
it is admitted that amounts furnished by the respondent in the revised
 6

assessment reflect the actual consumption during the period from 12/10 to 03/13
such sums ‘became due’ during the corresponding billing cycles itself when the
consumption occurred. The respondent was supposed to issue such bills during
the corresponding billing cycles and in case of any missing in such billing, the
same should have been made up within two years from the points when the
amounts had become actually due. The Forum cannot accept respondent’s
argument that amounts become due only when the bill is issued since the same
goes against the principles of natural justice. Any consumer has the right to get
bill for his consumption within a reasonable timeframe and that right is upheld
by section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. Section 18(8) of the Supply code
2005 also upholds this point. According to the same the licensee shall not
recover any arrears after a period of two years from the date when such sum
became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously in the bill as
recoverable as arrear of charges of electricity supplied. Even if the reassessment
done by the respondent for the period from 12/10 to 03/13 is treated to be
genuine arrears, the assessment, as such, cannot be recovered after a span of
two years and hence the issued short assessment bill is invalid.

Forum is of the opinion that the consumer cannot be burdened for the non
action of the respondent in time.

DECISION:

The short assessment bill for Rs. 1,715/- is cancelled.

The petitioner is at liberty to file appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman, within 30
days of receipt of this order, if not satisfied with this decision.

The petition is disposed as above.

Dated this 13th day of May 2014

 7

Sd/-
1) Sri. Lorance. K.M
(CHAIRPERSON)

Sd/-
2) Sri. Silvester Peter P
2nd member
Sd/-
3) Sri. Jefrin Manuel
3rd member

Endt. On CGRF-CR/Comp. 163/13-14

Sri. M.K. Dinesan,

Mavummoottil,
Changampuzha Nagar P.O.,
Thrikkakkara,
Pin – 682 033.

Copy Submitted to: The Chief Engineer, Distribution Central, KSEB, Gandhi
Square, DH Road, Kochi -16.

Copy to: - (1) The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, KSEB
Perumbavoor
(2) The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, KSEB,
Aluva
(3) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, ESD, K.S.E.B, Kalamaserry
(4) The Asst. Engineer, Ele. Section, Thevakkal
8