THE STATE ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN
Charangattu Bhavan, Building No.38/2829, 
Mamangalam-Anchumana Road, Edappally, Kochi-682 024
www.keralaeo.org    Ph: 0484 2346488, Mob: 91 9539913269 
Email: ombudsman.electricity@gmail.com

APPEAL PETITION No. P/080/2021
(Present: A.S. Dasappan)
Dated: 17th March 2022

            Petitioner		:   	Sri. N.S. Pradeep., 
Refreshment & Traders (Café Cabana) 
Opp. Malayala Manorama, Thampanoor, 
Thiruvananthapuram Dist. 695 011.

Respondent       :  1)	Executive Engineer, 
				KSEB Ltd., 
University of Kerala Senate House Campus, 
Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram 695033.

  			   2)	Assistant Engineer, 
Electrical Section,
 				KSEB Ltd., Puthanchantha Section, 
Santhi Nagar, Pulimoodu,
Thiruvananthapuram Dist.

ORDER
Background of the case:

The petitioner is a consumer with three-phase connection of Electrical Section, Puthenchantha with consumer number 1145048013962 under LT VIIA tariff category.  The date of connection is 12-02-2019 and the connected load is 8661 watts.  The petitioner is using electricity for running  restaurant in the name and style “Café Cabana”.  The petitioner received an unusual bill for Rs.45,476/- on 19-10-2020 for the consumption in a bi-month from 17-08-2020 to 19-10-2020.  The supply had been disconnected on 01-10-2020 following the detection of electric shock in the premises.  The petitioner intimated the fact of exorbitant bill to the Senior Officers of KSEB Ltd., but the subject was not even considered.  As such, the petitioner filed a petition before the Hon’ble UPA LOKAYUKTA on 16-12-2020 and the Forum disposed the petition directing the petitioner to remit Rs.20,000/- and approach the Electricity Ombudsman.  Accordingly, the petitioner remitted the amount and filed the petition before this Authority.

Arguments of the petitioner:
	The petitioner was conducting a Café Cabana under the name and style 
‘Refreshment & Traders’ in a building bearing TC No.81/2884(1), Opp.  Malayalamanorama, Thampanoor in Thycaud Village as a sole proprietor after obtaining valid license, permit and authorization required under from all concerned authorities.
The petitioner has received bills from the KSEB, Puthenchantha section, for the month of March 2020 as Rs. 23,119. for the month of April 2020 as Rs. 7,184/- for the month of June 2020 as Rs. 7,159/-, for the month of August 2020 as Rs.3.081 and for the month of October 2020 as Rs. 45.476/- respectively.
Since the Government have relaxed the conditions of the Lockdown and permitted to reopen the restaurants with certain conditions, the petitioner intended to reopen his restaurant from November 2020 onwards. When one of the staffs attempted to open the shutter of the restaurant, he experienced electric shock and the same was intimated to the KSEBL.  The employees of the KSEBL came and rectified the defect they have noticed. Thereafter the petitioner had received a bill on 19-10-2020 from KSEB for an exorbitant amount of Rs. 45,476/- with shock and surprise.  There is no chance to consume such a huge quantity of electricity for claiming Rs. 45,476/- as per bill dated 19-10-2020.  	The leakage of electricity from the main electrical post on the road side to the meter box area of the said firm caused the issuance of bill obviously wrong. The petitioner is no way liable to pay any amount towards the wrong bill which is due to the fault or errors on the part of the respondents.  Further, the employees of the KSEBL were also convinced the reason for wrong meter reading which is not due to any lapse from the part of the petitioner.  0n the other hand, the KSEBL and officials who were duty bound to check and verify the defects such as leakage or defects as in the instant case.  The petitioner has no right to check the meter which is absolutely under the control of the KSEBL.

	The petitioner had made an inspection by engaging a licensed and efficient electrician and found that the said leakage was from the meter board.  0n 19-10-2020, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB. But nothing was forthcoming in that complaint.  Subsequently, the petitioner had informed the same to the Executive Engineer, KSEB also.  But till now there is no response from the side of the KSEB authorities in this matter.  In fact, the KSEBL have not conducted a fair enquiry in this matter.  	The petitioner used to pay electric bills regularly as per the bills issued by KSEBL. The KSEBL had been issuing bills for consumption of electricity on the basis of meter reading.  There is absolutely no reason to suspect any fault with report to the functioning of the meter.
	Due to the said acts of the KSEBL authorities, the petitioner had filed a complaint No. 203/2020 before the Hon'ble UPA-Lokayukta on 16-12-2020 with an IA. No. 313/2020. An interim order was passed in the said IA directing the KSEBL authorities not to disconnect the electric connection of the said premises if the petitioner remits an amount of Rs. 20,000/-.  As per the said order, the complainant had remitted an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 17-12-2020 in the office of the KSEBL.  Accordingly, the period of stay was extended.  0n 15-12-2021, the Hon'ble “Upa-Lokayukta” passed an order directing the petitioner to file the complaint before the Ombudsman within three weeks rom the date of order. Hence, this complaint.  Under these circumstances, the petitioner is left with no choice except to approach this Electricity Ombudsman to grant the following:-
RELIEFS
1) To pass an order by declaring that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as per bill dated 19-10-2020.
2) To pass such other orders deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Argument of the respondent:
The energy meter in the premises of the consumer is installed in a metal box placed at a height of about 1.1 metre from the ground level. Three phase energy meter, three phase isolator, neutral link and three fuse units are placed inside the metal box.  From the meter, PVC flexible 4 sq. mm copper wires of length about 70 centimetres are connected to the fuse units and the fuse units and isolator are connected using wire of length 45 centimetres.  The said connection is given through LT cable of length 3 metre from the isolator to the changeover switch.  The length of cable from the changeover switch to distribution box is 8 metres.  In the distribution box, 12 nos.  of MCB, 1 no three-phase isolator and one ELCB are connected. The ELCB is not working.  The earthing rods fitted in the premises are not visible as the area is paved with tiles.
On 01-10-2020, a complaint of electric shock in the said premises was received at the section office over phone from a mobile number 9446529494. As directed by the Overseer on break down duty, the staff on duty inspected the premises, in the presence of a representative of the consumer.  As part of inspection, the supply to the premises was disconnected right after the energy meter. A thorough inspection was carried out inside & outside the premises. It was noted that no electric shock of any nature is persisting.
	Further inspection revealed that the ELCB in the premises is not working. It is clear from the fact that, when ELCB is in OFF position the electric supply to the premises is not interrupted.
In order to have a further investigation all the outgoing cables were disconnected.  A renovation of wiring has been completed by the consumer and after getting intimation about the completion of above exercise, outgoing cables were reconnected.  One of the fuse units in the meter box was seen renewed.
Thereafter, meter reading was taken on 19-10-2020 for regular billing. The recorded consumption was 4199 units and corresponding bill for Rs.45.476/- was served.  Considering the request of appellant dated 19-10-2020, check meter was connected on 21-10-2020 and the results are crosschecked as follows.
Date	Reading	Consumer Meter	Check meter	
21-10-2020	Initial Reading	15075	2203	
04-11-2020	Final Reading	15188	2314	
	Energy Consumption	113	111	

Based on the above investigation, the consumer was informed that the energy meter is not faulty as the consumption in the consumer meter and the check meter is same.  Analysis of the findings from the inspection of consumer’s premises and the tabulated readings of Check Meter readings, final conclusions are arrived at, considering the following points:

Three different scenarios need to be analysed, Viz.

1)	Area between Electric post & Incoming Terminal.

2)	Condition of Energy Meter

3)	Consumer premises electrical wiring after the Distribution Box.

Area between Electric post & Incoming Terminal.
	There are chances to get electric shock, if there is any leakage in this portion.
	If at all a leakage in this portion, it cannot be measured in the Energy meter, as this is not under the reading zone of the meter. 
	In this case the Energy meter had recorded 4199 units. Hence it can be concluded that the defect what so happened is after the meter position.

Condition of Energy Meter:
Energy Meter is not faulty.

Consumer premises electrical wiring after the Distribution Box.
	The ELCB (Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker) should have acted, if there is any Earth leakage.
	The ELCB in the premises was faulty.
      Obviously, energy meter will record any leakage of electricity in this portion and the healthy meter did its service in the right way.
The leakage of electricity in the electrical installation of KSEB Ltd. cannot be measured by the energy meter.  Hence, 4199 units recorded by the meter is a result of the leakage of electricity due to the defects in electrical wiring of the premises.
The authorised personnel engaged by the consumer inspected the wiring and replaced fuse unit in the meter box.  After that, check meter was installed. During further inspection, no defect could be noticed.  The total energy recorded in the meter is due to consumption of the consumer / earth leakage.  Hence, the consumer is liable to pay the said bill.

Analysis and findings:
An online hearing was conducted on 11-02-2022 with prior intimation to both the petitioner and the respondent.  The petitioner was not present in the hearing and Sri. R. Rajesh, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Subdivision, KSEB Ltd., Puthanchantha and Sri. P. Anilkumar, Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Puthanchantha attended the hearing.  Another hearing was conducted on 16-02-2022.  In the hearing Adv. Kamaleswaram. S. Manikantan Nair attended the hearing for the petitioner and Sri. R. Rajesh, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Subdivision, KSEB Ltd., Puthanchantha attended the hearing from the respondent’s side. On examining the petition, the counterstatement of the respondent, the documents attached and the arguments made during the hearing and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Authority comes to the following findings and conclusions leading to the decision thereof.
According to the petitioner, there is no chance to consume such a huge quantity of electricity in the bi-month up to 19-10-2020.  The petitioner suspects leakage of electricity from the meter board.  Hence, the petitioner is not liable to remit the amount.
The respondent has submitted that the ELCB provided in the premises was not working.  On 01-10-2020, the electrical system was checked by the respondent following an information from the petitioner that they felt electric shock in the premises.  The premises meter was tested with a calibrated meter and found almost the same consumption recorded.  The reason for the exorbitant consumption is the leakage of electricity in the premises or the excess power availed by the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is liable to remit the amount.
On examining the document file, it is seen that the petitioner had remitted Rs.20,000/- on 17-12-2020 as per the order of Hon’ble UPA LOK AYUKTA dated 16-12-2020. An inspection was conducted by the officials of the Licensee on 01-10-2020 following the information from the petitioner about the electric shock in the premises, but the reading of the energy meter is not seen taken by them.  Regulation 110 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 provides “Reading of meter”:
Regulation:
110 (7) 	It shall be the duty of the employee of the licensee or the person duly authorised by the licensee for reading the meter, to check the condition of light emitting devices (LED) on electronic meters.
     (8) 	In case the LED indicator for earth leakage provided in the electronic meters is found to be ‘ON’, he shall inform the consumer that there is leakage in the premises and advise the consumer to get the wiring checked and leakage removed.
     (9) 	The employee of the licensee or the person duly authorised by the licensee for reading the meter shall also inform the concerned officials of the licensee about the leakage.

The Licensee had to act in accordance with the above Regulation.  The respondent had not inspected the meter accordingly and a site mahazar was also not prepared.  A renewal of a fuse unit in the premises by the appellant is not a proof for any leakage of electricity.  The respondent also stated in the version that, they could not detect any evidence for the leakage of electricity.  The meter reading history in the premises from 12-02-2019 to 19-04-2021 is as follows:
M.R. 
Date	Meter Reading (kwh)	Consumption (kwh)		M.R. 
Date	Meter 
Reading(kwh)	Consumption (kwh)	
12-02-2019	0	0		17-04-2020	9659	-	
17-04-2019	985	985		18-06-2020	10790	1131 (2 bimonths)	
19-06-2019	2770	1785		17-08-2020	10875	85	
19-08-2019	4591	1821		19-10-2020	15074	4119	
17-10-2019	6241	1650		18-12-2020	16237	1163	
21-12-2019	7658	1417		18-02-2021	17677	1440	
19-02-2020	9659	2001		19-04-2021	19282	1605	

On analyzing the meter reading, the bimonthly energy consumption for the period from 12-02-2019 to 19-02-2020 varies in between 985 units to 2001 units.  The consumption for two bi-months from 19-02-2020 to 18-06-2020 is 1131 units and from 18-06-2020 to 17-08-2020 is 85 units.  Either the petitioner or the respondent had not raised any remarks regarding the consumption up to 17-08-2020.  The bimonthly energy consumption after 19-10-2020 is 1163 units, 1440 units and 1605 units.  As such, the consumption recorded in the meter from 17-08-2020 to 19-10-2020 for 4119 units is exorbitant.  As per petitioner, the lost of energy was not in the premises, but according to the respondent, the reason may be consumption in the premises or leakage of electricity.  In brief, the respondent could not find a reason for the disputed energy consumption.  The respondent had not produced any material evidence to show that the petitioner had consumed this much of energy or energy loss by way of leakage of electricity and hence, without a conclusive proof, a bill cannot be issued to a consumer for an unusual consumption.  The respondent had tested the meter with a calibrated meter and found almost the same consumption with a difference of 2 units for 14 days.
Decision: ‐ 
	As per the discussions and conclusions arrived at, which are detailed above,  I decide to take the following decision:
	The bimonthly bill for Rs.45,476/- dated 19-10-2020 issued to the petitioner is quashed.  The respondent is directed to prepare a revised bill taking the average of the three bimonthly consumptions recorded in the meter from 19-10-2020 to 19-04-2021 and issue the revised bill after adjusting the amount remitted to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of this order.  If the amount remitted is excess, that shall be adjusted in the future bills.
Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly.   No order on costs.	 

ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

P/080/2021/               dated                   .
Delivered to:
1.	Sri. N.S. Pradeep., Refreshment & Traders (Café Cabana), Opp. Malayala Manorama, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram Dist. 695 011.
2.	Executive Engineer, KSEB Ltd., University of Kerala Senate House Campus, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram 695033.
3.	Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, KSEB Ltd., Puthanchantha, Thiruvananthapuram Dist.
4.	Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB Ltd., Puthanchantha Section, Santhi Nagar, Pulimoodu, Thiruvananthapuram Dist.
Copy to:
1.	The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission, KPFC Bhavanam, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram-10.
2.	 The Secretary, KSE Board Limited, Vydhyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
3.	Kerala Lokayukta (UPA LOK AYUKTA), Legislature Complex, Vikas Bhavan. P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-33.