Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for respondent.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs. It is alleged inter alia that on 25.9.2006 the OPs came to the house of the complainant for meter checking and the wife of the complainant asked the OPs to come later on but they did not listen to it. It is alleged inter alia that the OPs prepared a verification report and got the signature of the wife of the complaint in a blank paper showing the load enhanced to 2 KW. Complainant after knowing this fact asked the OPs about the fact. However, the complainant received a provisional assessment bill to pay Rs.3,274.60 for the use of 2 KW load electricity against the contract load of 1 KW. Complainant alleged that having got such notice, he has complained before the SDO. Since all of his efforts are in vain, he filed the complaint.
4. OPs filed written version stating that on 25.9.2006 MRT squad have visited the premises of the complainant and they found the complainant was using 2 KW electricity against the contract load of 1 KW and as such the complainant was using unauthorisedly electricity more against the contract load. They calculated the penal bill accordingly under OERC Code, 2004 and directed the complainant to pay Rs.3,274.60. They have also averred that they have started proceeding u/s 126 of the Electricity Act for unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant. Thus, they averred that they have no any deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the opp.parties without cost. The opp.parties are found liable for their deficiency of service towards the complainant. They are to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and to rectify the bill amount looking into the meter reading. All these directions are to be carried out within 3 months from the date of this order. Parties are to bear their own cost throughout.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that complainant has been found using extra 1 KW electricity by violating the agreement between the parties. He submitted that OPs have rightly assessed the penal bill for Rs.3,274.60. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts. However, learned District Forum has committed error in law by imposing compensation and cost upon the appellant when the proceeding u/s 126 of Electricity Act has already started against the complainant. He also submitted that consumer complaint is not maintainable in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. and others vrs. Anis Ahmad reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2766. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order being illegal and improper should be set aside by allowing the appeal.
7. In this case the only point emerged to find out whether there is necessary compliance of the provisions of Electricity Act read with OERC Code, 2004 by the OPs so as to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. It is settled in law that the complainant has to prove his case and the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs. It is also not in dispute that on 25.9.2006 MRT squad of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant. In order to prove his case, he has examined himself. It appears from his evidence that after receiving verification report and provisional assessment vide Ext. A & B respectively, he has objected but not filed copy of written complaint before S.D.O.. It appears from the verification report that there is no any tampering of the meter, no bypassing of the meter and no theft of energy. The verification report is not clear to show how the OPs have come to a conclusion that the complainant was using energy of 2 KW. On the other hand, this verification report does not give details of how complainant was using 2 KW energy against 1 KW. Besides the show cause notice does not disclose as to how the conclusion arrived at and directed the complainant to pay Rs.3,274.60. The final bill has not been served on the complainant for the reasons best known to OPs. When the final bill has not been issued, it cannot be said that provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act has been complied.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the OPs have not followed the OERC Code, 2004 read with the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 properly. Even if assuming that complainant was using 2 KW, it must be observed that the 2 KW load would be applicable from the date it was detected but not prior to that. Therefore, decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P.Power Corporation (Supra) will not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, we are of view that the learned District Forum has rightly assessed the materials on record and there is nothing to differ from the finding of the learned District Forum. So, finding of learned District Forum is confirmed. The other argument made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that they have challenged the order to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- which is in higher side. The compensation is thus reduced to Rs.10,000/- for payment to the complainant. Therefore, we modify the operative portion of impugned order by directing the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Rest part of the impugned order remains unaltered.
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
