Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/13/2017

Pratap Pyarilal Patel - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-Sub Divisional Officer(Elect) WESCO - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. panda's with other advocates

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No-13/2017

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Pratap Pyarilal Patel,

S/O-Janmejaya Patel,  

R/o-Kuchinda, Near Kendu Leave office,

At/Ps/Po-Kuchinda, Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha.              ………….Complainant

Vrs.

1. Sub Divisional Officer (Elect) WESCO,

At/PO/Ps-Kuchinda, Dist-Sambalpur.

2. Executive Engineer (Elect) WESCO,

Jharsuguda Electrical Division (JED),

At/Po/Ps/Dist-Jharsuguda.

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant      :- Sri. A.K.Panda, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                    :- Sri. S.K.Dora, Advocate & Associates

DATE OF HEARING :XXXXX, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :10.08.2022

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a domestic Consumer bearing No. 413211120429 and supplying electricity. The Complainant is a regular payee of the electricity charges. From October 2016 average energy bills were raised by the O.Ps under the head of locked premises as no meter reading was taken but the bills are paid regularly. In November 2016 the meter reader said that the meter reader said that the meter is not visible. The Complainant complained the matter before section officer, Kuchinda WESCO vide letter dated 01.12.2016 and request was made to provide a new meter. The Complainant deposited Rs. 1800/- with the section Officer, Kuchinda.

The O.Ps on 19.12.2016 physically verified the premises, prepared a report took signature of the daughter-in-law of the Complainant. The report was not visible. After one day officials of O.P. No.1 changed the meter and again re-fixed it. Son of the Complainant visited time and again to the section officer, Kuchinda and requested for replacement with new one but the O.P. no.1 told the son of Complainant that as per physical verification of defective meter recorded reading is 28260 unit and Rs. 78,925/- charged as outstanding due. When son of the Complainant visited the O.P. No.1, the O.P. No.1 shown letter No. 4423(3) dated 22.12.2016, notice for disconnection.

On the request of Complainant the O.P. No.1 visited the premises and expressed their helplessness supplied billing date from April 2014 to Dec. 2016. The Complainant met O.P.No.2 made telephonic discussion with O.P. No.1 and assured to settle the matter but it was in vain.

The O.Ps relied the OERC (Conditions of supply) Code, 2004 clause 58(2) and clause 97 and alleged that the O.Ps have not followed the standard thereby deficient in their service.

2. The O.Ps after appearance filed their version, denied the allegations. From September 2015 to Dec. 2015 provisional bill was provided to the Complainant basing on meter reading as shown “locked”. From Sept. 2016 to Feb. 2017 also status was “Locked”. On 01.12.2016 the Complainant informed about defective meter and requested for replacement. On 19.12.2016 vigilance squad of utility, verified the status and billing pattern. The load was enhanced to 2.5KW and meter reading as on 19.12.2016 was 28260, where as the meter reading in Aug. 2016 was 7963. The high reading on 19.12.2016 was due to suppressed reading and provisional billing from 8/2009 to 11/2016 and final meter reading as 28,260. The bills for the period as on 08/2009(Initial Meter reading- IMR-3924). After revision the Complainant was to pay Rs. 79,834/- to the utility and letter dated 22.12.2016 bearing No.4423(3) was issued. The meter verification made was in time. The Complainant intends to erase the suppressed reading. The demand made by the O.Ps are proper.
3. After perusal of the documents filed by the parties the following issues are framed:-
103606587.  

1. Whether the electricity bill supplied by the O.Ps for the period April 2014 to Dec. 2016 is proper?
2. Are the O.Ps deficient in their service?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled for?

Issue No.1 Whether the electricity bill supplied by the O.Ps for the period April 2014 to Dec. 2016 is proper?

The O.P. in his version submitted that the load was enhanced to 2.5KW and Meter reading as on 19.12.2016 was 28260, whereas meter reading in Aug. 2016 was 7963. The high reading on 19.12.2016 was due to suppressed reading and provisional billing from 8/2009 to 11/2016. The Complainant complained the invisibility of the meter before section officer Kuchinda WESCO vide letter dated 01.12.2016. The Complainant deposited Rs. 1800/- with the section officer. The Complainant is a regular payee of the electricity. Annexure ‘A’ filed by the O.P. from it reveals that the average consumption range of the Complainant is 21 units to230 unit per month. The report shown that during August 2016 the meter status was ok. The O.Ps are silent on the question  of replacement of meter and not uttered a single word why the meter was replaced, installation charges of Rs. Rs. 1800/- received and again placed the old meter in the house of the Complainant. Thereafter only on 19.12.2016 physically verified the premises. The O.Ps have not filed any testing report of the meter and even not expressed about the charges taken on new meter. From the aforesaid circumstances it is clear that the O.Ps inorder to achieve their target up to July-2017 collection made a prey to the Complainant raised the electricity meter reading and imposed Rs. 78,925/- as outstanding dues. The O.Ps have not taken care of the meter for a longer period for which alleged about the suppressed meter reading.

The Complainant cited Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala V.M/S Kissan Rice Mills AIR 2010(NOC) 978 (P&H) case. The meter has not been  referred to electrical Inspector. No report of the defective meter found place in the record. Accordingly, the O.Ps can not charge excess amount and recovery. Accordingly the excess bill supplied to the Complainant for an amount of Rs. 788,925/- is not proper.

The issue is answered in favour of the Complainant.

Issue No.2 Are the O.Ps deficient in their service?

          The O.Ps have not installed the new meter although received Rs. 1800/- from the Complainant. Due to absence of report of the old meter non taking of monthly meter reading every month it reflects the deficiency in service of the O.Ps. The calculation made by the O.Ps from the period 08/2009 to 11/2016, the calculation sheet filed by the O.Ps is not acceptable as it is for a period of more than six months. The Complainant cited Tagore Public School, Ludhiana Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board case AIR 2010 Punjab 7 Hariyana 22. Accordingly the issue is answered against the O.Ps.

Issue No.3 What relief the Complainant is entitled for?

Being aggrieved the complainant filed the complaint. The Complainant is entitled for the relief.

          It is ordered:

ORDER

          The complaint is allowed on contest. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service. The O.Ps are directed to affix a correct meter supplying a testing report to the Complainant and not to threat disconnection without following due procedure. The O.Ps are further directed to give a clear calculation following the clause 97 of the OERC Code, 2004 for the period Sept. 2016 to Dec. 2016 within one month. The O.Ps are to pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation for harassment and Rs. 1800/- of refund in case new meter is not installed. Litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the Complainant. In case of non compliance the entire amount will carry 7% interest P.A. from the date of order till realisation.

          Order pronounced in open court on this 10^th day of August, 2022

          Supply free copies to the parties.