The case of the complainant in brief is that she is a consumer of OP i.e. APDCL (UAZ), Dibrugarh since long period and paying electricity bills regularly without any default. On 04.11.11 the complainant received a bill from OP for Rs.1370/- to be due on 17.11.11. When the complainant went to pay the bill at the office of Thermal ESD-I, she was informed that some area of the electricity consumers have been transferred to the jurisdiction of ESD-III and advised her to pay the bill at ESD-III. Accordingly, the complainant approached to ESD-III with a request to receive the electricity bill but ESD-III intimated her that  they are not in a position to accept the bill as some of the documents  and papers have yet not been received from ESD-I and asked her to come when a fresh bill will be issued to her. The complainant received a bill from ESD-III but was shocked after seeing the bill amount of Rs.9566/-.  The complainant immediately rushed to the office of ESD-III with a request to correct the bill amount  and on hard pressure the authorities of ESD-III prepared a new bill amounting to Rs.6661/-. The complainant being a poor lady paid only Rs.4000/- asking the OP to adjust Rs.2661/- with the next bill. Meanwhile, on 06.03.12 two persons of OP went to the house of the complainant to disconnect the electricity connection. However, due to protest by the complainant the employee of the OP left the place. The complainant again  received a bill on 17.03.12 amounting Rs.3533/- including arrear bill but it is pertinent to mention here that the arrear bill was Rs.2661/- whereas, OP negligently and with ulterior motive included Rs.3167/- as arrear bill. This act of OP were out and out deficiency in service due to their negligence for which the complainant suffered immense loss, torture, harassment and agony hence the complainant filed this claim case with prayer to pay a sum of Rs.7553/- and expenses incurred in the payment of electricity bill, Rs.500000/- being harassment and mental agonies and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation.

           After registering the case notice was issued to the OP who contested the case by filing  written statement stating inter -alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. The OP stated that for administrative efficiency and maintenance of the Company some area under the authority of Dibrugarh Electrical Sub-Division-I i.e. DESD-I vested to DESD-III. As such, residential area of the complainant which was earlier with DESD-I has been vested with OPs administrative area i.e. DESD-III. After the said arrangement it appears that OP i.e. DESD-I had served a bill dated 14-10-11 for a period from 27.08.11 to 28.09.11 amounting to  Rs.1321/- but the complainant failed to pay the said amount. Eventually after aforesaid rearrangement OP sent subsequent bill to the complainant but due to some computering error of the OP mistake arose for which the OP issued a certified bill total amounting to Rs.6661/- including an arrear of Rs.1321/- for the period from 29.09.11 to 09.01.12 on the basis of previous meter reading recorded as 7849 and present meter reading 8922. Upon receipt of the said bill the complainant on 13.02.12 paid an amount of Rs.4000/- in part and the sum of Rs.2661/- remained outstanding. Subsequently, OP again sent the next bill to the complainant for the period from 09.01.12 to 09.02.12 for an amount of Rs.3167/- which was inclusive of aforesaid arrear amount of Rs.2661/-. But despite of receipt of the said bill the complainant failed to pay the just and due amount of the bill to the OP. The OP thereafter, sent next bill for the period from 09.12.12 to 03.03.12 which came to Rs.3553/- inclusive of the previous bill amount of Rs.3167/-. But the complainant again deliberately neglected to pay the said bill amount. The OP subsequently served the next bill for the period from 03.03.12 to o3.04.12 amounting to Rs.3950/- inclusive of the arrear amount of Rs.3553/-. In spite of that the complainant wilfully neglected to pay the amount of the bill. The complainant comfortably consuming the electric power whereas, deliberately neglected to pay the amount of the bill and now has made a false and baseless statement attempting to mislead the Forum. It is the responsibility of the complainant to make payment of the amount of the bill for consumption of electric power. The complainant without paying the bill lodged a complaint before the Forum concealing of the real fact which is absolutely false, vague and baseless as such, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP which the complainant trying to mislead the Forum and the case filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed against the OP.

           In this case complainant gave his evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as  4(four) documents in support of his  case. On the other hand, OP has examined one Sri Pallab Pran Bora, Sub Divisional Engineer, Dibrugarh Electrical Sub Division-III and exhibited as many as 6 (six) documents to rebut the case of the complainant.

          Heard arguments of both the parties.

DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :

PW-1, complainant of this case in her evidence has stated that she is consumer of the OP since long period and paying the electricity bill regularly. On 04.11.11 she received a bill from OP for an amount of Rs.1370/- which was due on 17.11.11. As such, she went to the office of the OP to make payment of the bill. Officials of the thermal ESD-I informed her that some part of the electricity consumers have been transferred to the jurisdiction of ESD-III and therefore refused to accept the bill amount. Ext-1 is the document of said bill. The complainant along with the said bill i.e. Ext-1 approached to the authority of ESD-III to make payment of the bill but the authorities of ESD-III informed her that they are not in a position to accept the bill as some documents and papers have yet not been received from ESD-I and asked her to come when fresh bill would be issued. When the complainant received the  next bill from ESD-III for amount Rs.9556/- which is an exorbitant and unexpected amount i.e. Ext-2 she was shocked and immediately rushed to the office of ESD-III and showed the bill to the authority. However, on pressure of the complainant the bill was subsequently rectified to Rs.6661/-. The complainant paid Rs.4000/- of the bill in part and remaining Rs.2661/- is to be  adjusted in the next bill.  Ext-3 is the rectified bill and Ext.3(1) is the money receipt of payment of Rs.4000/-. The complainant further stated that on 06.03.12 two employees of the OP came to disconnect her electricity connection even though part of the bill was paid which is duly accepted by the OP. However, on protest by the complainant the employee of the OP left the place. The complainant again received a bill on 17.03.12 for an amount of Rs.3553/- including  the arrear bill. But in the said bill the OP have shown the arrear of Rs.3167/- whereas, the amount of arrear was only Rs.2661/- which amount to deficiency in service of the OP. Ext-4 is the said bill. As such, the OP is liable to deficiency and negligence in service under C.P. Act, 1986.

            On the other hand, DW-1 Sri Pallab Pran Bora, Sub Divisional Engineer, Dibrugarh Electrical Sub Division –III stated that originally the area of DESD-I and DESD-III was under same administrative authority. Latter on due to some administrative convenience some area including the area of the complainant was transferred to authority of DESD-III.  After the aforesaid arrangements it appears that DESD-I had served a bill dated 14.10.11 for the period from 27.08.11 to 28.09.11 amounting to Rs.1321/- prepared on the basis of previous meter reading of 7691 and present meter reading 7849. Ext-A is the copy of the said bill. Complainant failed to pay the said amount. After aforesaid change of arrangement DESD-III sent one subsequent bill for the period from 29.09.11 to 09.01.12 amounting to Rs.6661/- inclusive of earlier bill amount of Rs.1321/-. Ext-B is the said copy of bill payable on 11.02.12. However, upon receipt of the said bill complainant on 13.02.12 paid an amount of Rs.4000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.2661/- was to be adjusted from the next bill. Ext-C is the copy of the payment receipt. Thereafter, the OP sent a bill for the period from 09.01.12 to 09.02.12 amounting to Rs.3167/- inclusive of arrear amount of Rs.2661/-. Ext-D is the said bill payable on 02.03.12 but the complainant deliberately failed to pay its due amount. Thereafter, OP sent another bill  for subsequent period from 09.02.12 to 03.03.12 amounting to Rs.3553/- inclusive of aforesaid arrear amount of Rs.3167/-. Ext-E is the said bill payable on 28.03.12. Even then on receipt of all the above bills complainant failed to pay the bills amount. Subsequently, OP sent another bill to the complainant for the next period from 03.03.12 to 03.04.12 amounting to Rs.3950/-including the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs.3553/-. Ext-F is the bill amount payable on 24.04.12. But the complainant intentionally and deliberately failed to pay any of the above bill amount. All the above bills were just and legitimate but the complainant wilfully avoided payment of the said bill and has instituted the present case contending  all baseless and misleading statement hence prayed to dismiss the case.

After meticulous scrutiny of the evidence of both the parties and perusing all the documents it is found that  there is no any discrepancies regarding the bills submitted by the OP. On perusal of the evidence on record particularly Ext-A submitted by OP it  appears that a bill dated 14.10.11 comprising period from 27.08.11 to 28.09.11 amounting  to Rs.1321/- was issued by previous authority i.e. DESD-I. The said amount was not paid by the complainant. Complainant stated that the said amount was not accepted by either DESD-I or DESD-III. However, due to transition of administration the above bill was not accepted by the OP if the evidence of PW-1 is accepted. The complainant exhibited the document as Ext-1 of bill amount of Rs.1370/- for the period from 29.09.11 to 27.10.11 inclusive of arrear amount of Rs.1321/- for the previous bill i.e. Ext-A which appears from one Ext-1 for the period from 27.08.11 to 28.09.11. In the bill i.e. Ext-1 and Ext-A as shown by both the parties we  do not find any discrepancy. In respect of Ext.2 and Ext-B are concerned,  the OP admitted that due to certain computering error in bill i.e. Ext.2  the OP issued a certified bill i.e. Ext-B total amounting Rs.6661/- which appears to be rectified bill of Ext-2 and complainant has accepted the rectified bill from 29.09.11 to 09.01.12 i.e. Ext-B. After accepting the bill i.e. Ext-B the complainant paid Rs.4000/- in instalment basis vide Ext.3(1) and Ext-C. Since the complainant accepted the said bill there cannot be any discrepancy and conflict between complainant and OP.

Complainant agitated in this case on the point of Ext-4, that is complainant had  to pay Rs.2661/- as arrear outstanding of the earlier bill, whereas, the OP have shown arrear as Rs.3167/- which according to complainant is discrepancy and negligence on the part of OP. However, in this respect if we go through the evidence and documents of OP i.e. Ext-D, E, F the complainant missed the bill for the period from 09.01.12 to 09.02.12 i.e. Ext-D submitted by the OP. Complainant came straightway to the next period i.e. 09.02.12 to 03.03.12 where Rs.2661/- was missing because earlier bill the amount of Rs.2661/- was included. However, if we go through the chronological  reading of Ext-D to Ext-F it is found that Ext-D shows the period of bill from 09.01.12 to 09.02.12 amounting to Rs.3167/- which was inclusive of arrear of amount of Rs.2661/- thereafter the OP again issued Ext-E which is shown as Ext-4 by complainant. the period of bill from 09.02.12 to 03.03.12 amounting to Rs.3553/- inclusive of earlier unpaid amount of Rs.3167/-. Then the next bill was Ext-F which comprised from 03.03.12 to 03.04.12 amounting to Rs.3950/- inclusive of aforesaid arrear amount of Rs.3553/-. From the above chronological bills as shown by OP we do not find any material discrepancy in the bills. Whereas, the complainant even after consuming the electric supply deliberately and wilfully neglected to pay the amounts of the bills. The OP have submitted justified and legitimate bills which amount to no deficiency in service on the part of OP. In spite of that the complainant consuming electric supply comfortably without paying the bills. Complainant has right to claim electricity so long she remain in possession of the property because no one in modern days can survive without electricity, and therefore, the right to electricity is also a right to life and liberty in the terms of article 21 of the Constitution of India. But though the complainant has right  to enjoy the electricity but on the counter part he is also having duty and obligation to pay the bill amount. Whereas, in the present case, the complainant did not pay the bill amount for few months and came to this Forum without violating his right. The complainant had other option also. The complainant had to pay the bill amount on protest under sub section (b) of section 18 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of 1998. Any error of bill will be adjusted in the subsequent bill. Whereas, the complainant neither paid the bill nor lodged any complaint before the authority. As it appears from the fact stated herein above and the document submitted  by the OP the OP has duly prepared the bill as per consumption of power by the complainant. In one bill for the period 29.09.11 to 09.01.12 i.e. for 102 days issued a bill for Rs.9556/- is appear from Ext-2. But subsequently, on being protest by the complainant said bill was rectified and the OP also admitted the error and the rectified bill was also accepted by the complainant which she paid in installment for Rs.4000/- and remaining amount of Rs.2661/- is to be adjusted from the next bill.  However, from Ext-D it appears that the OP had adjusted the remaining amount in the next bill period from 09.01.12 to 09.02.12. Subsequent bills were also duly prepared by the OPs.

            In view of the discussion arrived above, this Forum comes to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of                 OP and the complainant has not suffered any loss. Rather complainant after enjoying the electricity supply deliberately neglected               to pay the electricity bills. Under the circumstances it is clear that as per C.P. Act the OP is not liable to pay any compensation as               claimed by the complainant.  Hence, the case of the complainant is dismissed without cost.