PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.41/2023
Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,
Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,
Santosh Kumar Panda, aged about 60 years
S/O-Late Chatirbhuja Panda,
R/o- Kainsir, PO-Sankarma, Ps-Ainthapali,
Tahl/Dist-Sambalpur .……….......Complainant.
Vrs.
CEO, TPWODL,
(Tata Power Western Odisha Distribution Ltd)
Burla, Sambalpur-768017 ...……….Opp. Party
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Sri. D.D.Panda & Associates
- For the O.P. :- Sri. S.K. Nanda, representative
Date of Filing:27.03.2023, Date of Hearing :16.01.2024, Date of Judgement :04.03.2024
Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is having consumer No. 4117-3408-0802 at village Kainsir. The house was locked for one year and the O.P. all of a sudden threatened to disconnect the power supply incase immediately payment is not made.
Being aggrieved complaint was filed.
- The O.P. in reply submitted that billing disputes are not maintainable before this Commission. Santosh Kumar Panda has been allotted Consumer No. 4117-3408-0802 with permitted load 1.5KW under LT/Domestic Category with meter No. LW 627128. Supply of power made since 26.07.2016. The consumer is irregular in payment. Up to March 2023 Rs. 11,144.69P bill is outstanding Energy meter Sl. No. WUS13051 installed in the premises became defective in March 2020 for which provisional bills were given for the period March 2020 to Dec. 2020 for 11 units per month. Meter No. LW 627128 was installed on 08.01.2021 and thereafter actual bills are given. As per regulation 155 of the supply code 2019(January 2020 to December 2021) (Avg. 296 units/Month) the provisional bill was revised and the amount of Rs. 13,191.34P was debited. There is no illegality in revision of bill and issuance disconnection notice. There is no deficiency on the part of the O.P.
- Perused the documents filed by both the parties. From the billing leger it reveals that from June 2016 to December 2020 meter No. WUS13051 was working and total outstanding against the Complainant was Rs. 2139.40. The Complainant was irregular in payment. Up to March 2023 and amount of Rs. 11,114.70p was shown outstanding. The O.P. submitted that the meter became defective was replaced on 08.1.2021 and thereafter actual bills have been given. From the statement of the O.P. a question arises, when the O.P. came to know about defects in the meter before installation dated 08.01.2021. As per Regulation 114 of the supply code 2019 the O.P. failed to establish from which source and how the meter became defective. Further in the present case the Complainant has not reported any complaint. During periodic or other inspection if the meter is found to be defective along with the account statement the O.P. has to submit an inspection report but no such document filed before the Commission. As per regulation within 60 days the replacement should be made. The procedure for replacement of the meter is not proper. Thereafter the O.P. as per Regulation 155 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of supply) code, 2019 revised the bill. When the procedure for replacement is not proper, calculation of energy consumption in revision for the period March 2020 to December 2020 is not proper. In December 2022 the bill was revised and outstanding shown as Rs. 13,883.17P. Here question arises after installation of new meter and as per provision of Regulation 155 of the supply code immediately after six months revision should have been done and demand notice was to be issued but only on 12.01.2023 demand was raised. At the time of raising demand of Rs. 13,883.17P, prior to that two years have elapsed this part the O.P. has not taken into account.
The Consumers are generally ignorant of the procedures and the O.P. is taking advantage of it by putting the consumers in clumsy situations of the accounting. The O.P. not followed due procedure of installation of new meter nor revision made and demand made in time which amounts to deficiency in service.
During interim order dated 03.04.2023 as per direction of the Commission the Complainant deposited Rs. 3000/- on 12.04.2023.
Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case the revision of bills made by the O.P. is not proper and this commission has jurisdiction to examine whether due procedure has been followed or not. Accordingly, it is ordered.
ORDER
The Complaint is partly allowed. The O.Ps is directed to revise the bill as per provision of Regulation 155 of the supply code, 2019 taking into account the limitation period two years from date of filing the complaint i.e. 27.03.2023 and after adjusting the payment intimate/demand the arrears to the Complainant within one month of this order. No cost and compensation.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of March 2024.
Supply free copies to the parties.
