Order no. 24
The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a consumer under the o.p.s. The complainant received a bill in the month of Feb. to April 2011 with a demand of Rs. 1,934/-. During the months of September, October and November received the bill at an exorbitant rate. The complainant further stated that from the month of May to July, 2010 the complainant received the bill amount of Rs. 689/-, Rs. 683/- and Rs. 702/- during the said period. The complainant stated that the meter was not functioning properly for which the o.p.s claimed exorbitant from the complainant. There was gross deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.s for which the complaint filed this case.
The o.p.s contested the case by filing w/v denying all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the consumer received a bill amounting to Rs. 1,934/- only for the period from Feb. to April, 2012 along with outstanding amount of Rs. 3,798/-. The o.p.s denied that there was any excessive demand made by the o.p.s. Since the outstanding amount was not paid, the said amount was shown in the subsequent bills. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.s. It was further stated by the o.p.s that the complainant deposited the disputed bill along with outstanding bill and afer receiving the same amount the connection was restored. In view of the said fact the o.p.s prays for dismissal of the case against the o.p.s.
Considering the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether there was any illegal claim made by the o.p.s.
- Whether the complainant paid the outstanding amount.
- Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.s.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decisions with reasons :-
The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant being the consumer of the electricity found that the electric bill sent to the complainant was excessive for which the complainant had to file the case praying for restoration of the electric connection as well as imposition of compensation for claiming illegal amount from the complainant. Since there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.s the complainant had to file this case.
The Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that the complainant all through made due in respect of an amount of Rs. 3,798/- and he also failed to pay the current amount of the bill during the said period for which the o.p. had to disconnect the electricity of the complainant. After the payment of the outstanding dues coupled with the payment of the current bill amount the electric connection was restored. In case of billing dispute the consumer had the opportunity to raise the said dispute to the separate authority as provided by the o.p. but the complainant instead of availing of that opportunity had filed this case with an eye to extract money from the o.p. Since there was no substantive material against the o.p.s accordingly the o.p.s prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the o.p.s. In order to show that the excessive amount was demanded by the o.p.s the complainant could not file any material. In case of dispute regarding the defect of the electric meter the complainant could have raised his objection before the competent authority and on payment of some amount the check meter would have been installed beside the defective meter to record the actual consumption made by the consumer wherefrom the defect of the meter could have been ascertained. But here in this case the complainant neither took any step for ascertainment of the defective meter on the contrary the complainant went on consuming electricity without payment of the electricity charges. In view of such scenario the o.p.s had no other alternative but to disconnect the electricity. Subsequently with the payment of the outstanding dues the connection was restored. The object of the complainant was to make false allegations against the o.p.s for which he should be blamed as he himself created his own problem by withholding the electricity charges. Since the complainant did not come with clean hands and we do not find any cogent reason whatsoever against the o.p.s so as to hold that there was no deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit to be allowed.
Hence,
ordered,
that the case no. CC/323/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost.
Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
