PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
Consumer Complaint No.- 241/2023
Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,
Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,
Smt. Pankanjini Sarangi,
W/O- Pramod Kumar Sarangi,
At/Po-Gunderpur,
Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha ……….......Complainant.
Vrs.
- S.D.O.-II TPWODL, Dhanupali
At/PO/Ps-Dhanupali,
Dist-Sambalpur-768005.
- Executive Engineer Electrical, TPWODL,
At-Bhutapada, PO/Dist-Sambalpur-768001. .…....……….Opp. Parties
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Sri. D.K. Bishi & Associates
- For the O.P.s :- Parika Gupta & Samapika Mohanty
Date of Filing:26.12.2023, Date of Hearing :30.09.2024, Date of Judgement :25.11.2024
Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is having consumer No. 4162-3104-0072 and paying electricity bills regularly. The meter installed is running properly but the O.Ps without visiting the premises putting reading since 2021 and claiming excessive amount. The O.Ps informed several times but not solved the problem till October 2023. Complaint was filed before PLA, Sambalpur for refund of excess amount but due to defunct condition to meet the urgency filed not press memo.
The O.Ps are demanding Rs. 70,000/- as arrears and noticed to pay within 7 days. When disconnection notice was given this complaint has been filed.
- The O.Ps in reply submitted that the connection is in the name of Complainant under LT/Domestic category with a permitted load of 4K.W. with meter serial No. 300072952. PLA case No. 21/2023 was filed by the Complainant, which is pending for final disposal. This is a billing dispute and not maintainable before this Commission. Energy meter No. A-1795245 became defective since July, 2021 and on complaint it was replaced. Vide meter serial No. 300072952 dated 31.12.2021.
Being noticed in PLA Case No. 21/2023 the O.Ps arranged for testing of meter installed on 06.11.2023 and found that meter is defective. On 18.11.2023 when O.Ps went for replacement the Complainant not allowed. As per Regulation 155 of the OERC code the provisional billing due to revised meter was revised after a new meter installed. As the Complainant not allowed replacement of meter bills could not be revised. The meter testing report dated 06.11.2023 is filed.
For billing dispute the GRF can be approached. There is no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps.
- Perused the documents filed by both the parties. The allegation of the Complainant is that the O.Ps are putting reading as per their wish without visiting to the premises since 2021 and claiming excess amount. The Complainant informed the O.Ps but till October, 2023 the O.Ps could not solve the problem.
The O.Ps replied that from July, 2021 on complaint meter was replaced vide serial No. 300072952 dated 31.12.2021. As per actual reading bills were made. When in PLA caseNo. 21/2023 notice was received the O.Ps came to know about the grievance and on 06.11.2023 new meter was installed finding old meter defective. The O.Ps went to the premises on 18.11.2023 for replacement of old meter but the Complainant not allowed.
From contention of the parties it reveals that meter serial No. 300072952 installed on 31.12.2021 is under challenge. The O.Ps claim the meter to be defective. The O.Ps filed the inspection report dated 06.11.2023 wherein remarks made, “As per consumer complaint received from concern section, the above premises inspected and found meter defective. A new meter to be installed by replacing old meter. Sealing done as per requirement. The Complainant submitted the copy of inspection report dated 06.11.2023 wherein the remarks column is totally blank; CT testing & PT testing is also blank. The MRT official namely Risabh Kumbhar has not put the date with signature.
From both the reports it is clear that on 06.11.2023 the officials of O.Ps had been to the premises of Complainant. Inspected the meter, prepared the inspection report partly and handed over a copy to Complainant. Later on the inspection report was prepared. The circumstances proves that the inspection report is manipulated by the O.Ps.
As per regulation 95 of the OERC Code, 2019 when any inventory of installation or inspection report is made the inspecting staff has to take into consideration the connected equipment, apparatus machinery which are integral part of the installation or inspection. The O.Ps not reflected in the report dated 06.11.2023 any equipment. The report has been prepared after wards. The modus operandi of the inspecting team proved the deficiency in service of the O.Ps. The inspection was not done properly.
- The O.Ps submitted that PLA Case NO. 21/2023 is sub-judiced before PLA, Sambalpur. The Complainant submitted order dated 22.04.2024 wherein the case has been disposed off as not pressed. Order was passed basing on the memo dated 27.12.2023. Accordingly, the contention of the O.Ps regarding maintainability is not acceptable. It is a general practice of the O.Ps that a case filed before this Commission is billing dispute and it is not maintainable. In the present complaint the dispute is regarding collection of meter reading or casual billing without verification. It is the duty of meter reader to collect the meter reading actually and hand-over a bill for payment by the Complainant. The dispute is regarding meter defective or not which comes within the preview of this Commission. This is a case of deficiency in service and maintainable before this Commission.
The Complainant when made complaint before PLA, Sambalpur the O.Ps became alert and thereafter only have taken steps to examine the allegation raised by Complainant. The allegation is that the O.Ps have charged excessive amount and the bills paid need to be refunded.
The Complainant filed the meter regarding photographs dated 26.10.2023 as 012900.5, 013144.5 as on 15.12.2023 and 013192.1 as on 25.12.2023. From bill dated 21.12.2022 the consumption was 290 units and bill amount is Rs. 1420.48P. In bill dated 13.02.2023 consumption is 380 units and bill amount Rs. 3290.00. During 14.10.2023 bill unit is 259 units whereas bill raised Rs. 12,824.00. There is no any discrepancy in meter reading but the amount shown by the O.Ps are excessive which is the allegation of the Complainant. The charges should be based on consumed units. It does not reflects that meter is defective. The O.Ps to patch up their lacuna have taken all attempts to declare the meter as defective which is not only unfair but also amount to deficiency in service. The billing amount raised is erroneous and O.Ps compelling to pay the amount to the customer and in the case non-payment threatening for disconnection.
- From the supra discussion it is clear that the payments which are made by the Complainant is to be refunded by the O.Ps. The charges should be based on consumed units.
In such circumstances following order is passed:
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to refund the excess amount received from Complainant since 31.12.2021 from date of installation of meter taking into account the actual unit raised every month. For deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the O.Ps are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of Nov, 2024.
Supply frees copies to the parties.
