Allowed

K.M.Chakkappan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC23 May 2016WP(C)/4808/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Kerala State Electricity Board's back assessment of power bills. The court held that when material indicates regular payments and computed averages, the average consumption from January to March 2004 must be used for future bill assessments.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; Exts.P6 and P7 set aside; Board directed to assess bill based on March 2004 average consumption of 14,387 units after adjusting prior payments.

K.M.Chakkappan Vs Kerala State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4808 of 2013 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

K.M.CHAKKAPPAN,

¶8

KALOORKADAN HOUSE, OKKAL, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN- 683 550.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶13

3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL REGION, POWER HOUSE BUILDING, CEMETERYMUKKU, ERNAKULAM , KOCHI- 682 018.

¶14

4. STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, PALLIKAVIL BUILDING, MAMANGALAM-ANJUMANA TEMPLE ROAD, EDAPALLY, KOCHI 682 024.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB, S.C

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 4808 of 2013 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 21.03.2011.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ACCOMPANYING EXT. P1.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 31.03.2011.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE BILLS FOR THE MONTHS OF 8/2003 AND 9/2003 AND 12/2003 TO 2/2005.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2011.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.4808 of 2013

¶34

Dated this the 23^rd day of May 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶37

“i) To call for the records connected with the case leading to Exts.P1, P2, P4 and P6 & P7 and quash Exts.P1, P2, P4, P6 to the extent it is challenged and Ext.P7 by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶38

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring that the amount demanded by the 2^nd respondent is barred by the question of limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003.

¶39

iii) To award cost for these proceedings.”

¶40

The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, being a consumer of electricity with consumer No.18336 claims to have paid the running bills in time. However, he was served with an additional bill dated 21/03/2011 claiming to be back assessment from April 2004 to December 2004 alleging that the meter was faulty and a further short assessment was made for a period from January 2005 to March 2005.

¶41

W.P.C.No.4808/2013

¶42

¶43

Subsequently, a bill was issued to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.2,57,471/-. Petitioner filed an objection on 31/03/2011 as Ext.P3. However, he was called upon to remit the amount. According to the petitioner, during the period from August 2003 to September 2003 and December 2003 to February 2005, he was receiving monthly bills and the payment was effected as evident from Ext.P5. The petitioner, in fact, approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum challenging the demand. By order dated 20/09/2011, it was held that the re-assessment has to be made on the basis of average of six months consumption recorded for the period from January 2005 to June 2005 and accordingly directed to revise the short assessment bill. The Forum, however, held that there is no material to come to a conclusion that a multiplication factor has to be adopted in respect of the period from January 2005 to March 2005 and accordingly the said assessment was set aside. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman and the following decision has been taken.

¶44

“The consumer's meter was faulty from 4/2004 onwards as was evident from the Bill

¶45

W.P.C.No.4808/2013

¶46

¶47

calculation register and the Meter reading register of KSEB. The copy of the same was issued to the consumer and the appellant has not disputed the said documents. Hence it is taken as correct. It is seen that the consumer was billed for a power meter average consumption of 14387 units plus the actual Light meter energy during this period. This average of 14387 units was obtained from the previous three months average prior to 4/04 i.e. 1/04 to 3/04 (instead of the previous six months as per rules), since the 6 month period was not available as there occurred a case of Tampering of the Meter during this time. It is not advisable to assess the average consumption by taking the previous three months average, from the meter readings obtained from 1/04 to 3/04, as there exists a specific rule for six months average for the same. Hence the six months average taken after changing with a good meter in 1/2005 and reassessed at 19473 units instead of 14387 units and consequently the arrear amount of Rs.161350/arrived at, is found to be in order and payable by the consumer.

¶48

The reason for changing the energy meter on 4/4/05 is not reported by the respondent. Hence the reassessment made for the period from 1/05 to

¶49

W.P.C.No.4808/2013

¶50

¶51

3/05 is not valid and the finding of the CGRF in this regard stands good.

¶52

Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. I find merit in the order of the CGRF vide order No.CGRF-Cr/Comp.29/2011-12 dated 20.9.2011. The consumer is eligible for 9 (nine) instalments, if requested for, by him. No interest is payable by the consumer for the appeal pending period before this Forum. The respondent shall serve the bill as ordered now, with 30 days time given (due date) for making the payment. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant stands disposed of with the directions ordered as above. No order on the costs.”

¶53

The main reason for directing computation of power

¶54

charges for a period of six months from January 2005 is on the premise that the meter was faulty. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Ext.P5 series and contends that all along the bills for the aforesaid period were being received and the amount was paid.

¶55

Learned counsel argued that, even in the impugned order, it was found that the consumer was billed for the average power meter consumption of 14387 units plus actual light meter

¶56

W.P.C.No.4808/2013

¶57

¶58

average during the said period. The contention therefore is that there is no reason for making the reassessment based on meter charges from January 2005 onwards. Learned counsel also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 04/02/2013 in W.P.C.No.33993 of 2009 wherein reference was made to Clause 31(c) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and it was observed that when the respondent Board has no case that the energy meter was faulty prior to December 2004, subsequent three months consumption cannot be taken as the basis for demanding electricity charges. They have to take three months' average consumption for the period prior to December 2004.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the average consumption during the period April 2004 to December 2004 is available as evident from the bills and it is stated to be so in the appellate order, even assuming that the meter was faulty, the said units alone can be taken as the basis.

¶60

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I am of the view that when materials are available on record to indicate that the petitioner was paying energy charges during the relevant time and the average consumption had been computed for the

¶61

W.P.C.No.4808/2013

¶62

¶63

period from January 2004 to March 2004, the same alone can be taken as the criteria for issuing further bills.

¶64

In the result,

¶65

i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) Exts.P6 and P7 orders are set aside.

¶66

Iii) Respondent Board is directed to treat the average consumption of the petitioner for the period from January 2004 to March 2004 being 14387 units and thereafter assess the bill amount and make a demand for back assessment after adjusting the payments already made during the relevant period.

¶67

(sd/-)

¶68

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶69

jsr

K.M.Chakkappan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Chakkappan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roy Kurian Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.

Shibu S.B Vs the Federal Bank

M/S.Cheriya Mangad Radhayathra One Vanchi Group Vs the Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda

Sathi.P Vs Asst.Engineer

George J.Thaliath Vs State Bank of India

Union Bank of India Vs K.P.Satheesan