SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
It is alleged that Opp. Parties are deficient in service by illegally disconnecting the power supply to the complainant’s residential house and providing inflated monthly energy bills are the allegation arrayed against the Opp. Parties.
2. Complaint, in a nutshell reveals that complainant is a consumer under Ops since the year 2002 bearing Consumer No.01009954 and was paying monthly energy dues regularly till the date. On dtd.11.09.2013 complainant made a written application and met OP No.1 for installation of a meter as the same was not responded complainant filed a written application through Courier on dtd. 19.03.14. It is revealed that on dtd.12.03.15 the staffs of the Ops rushed to the complainants house and demanded Rs.15,000/- failing which threatened to disconnect the power supply. When the family members unable to pay the demanding amount on the spot the staff of OP No.2 disconnected the power supply. Before disconnection of power supply Ops have never issued any prior ‘Notice’ to the complainant. The cause of action of the instant case arose on dtd.12.03.15 when the Ops disconnected the power supply as a result the complainant is suffering a lot without electricity. It is prayed that a direction may be issued to OPs for restoration of power supply. Installation of meter for actual consumption and compensation of Rs.7,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation.
3. After service of notices to the Ops, OP No.2,Project Manager,Enzen Global Solution filed written statement on behalf of the Ops. As per the letter vide No.1945 dtd. 01.12.14 of OP No.1 CESU, Odisha basing on an agreement between OP No.1 & 2 the grievances relating to LT billing,meter reading, new service connection and revision of bills of the division are entrusted to OP No,2, Enzen Global Solutions. Hence, the written statement filed by OP No.,2 is treated as written statement of all the Ops.
The written statement reveals that complainant was enjoying power supply on a contract demand of 2.5 KW. Due to defective meter status the monthly energy bills were prepared on an average of 144 units per month from March,2005 to till-date. It is stated in the written statement that prior to filing of the complaint neither complainant approached the CESU authorities(OP No.1) nor OP No.2, the contesting Ops for installation of a new meter. In March,2005 the complainant had an opening arrear of Rs.13,570.60 and till Febnruary,2015 the arrear outstanding was Rs.1,31,740.53 paise. It is also stated that complainant-consumer was a chronic defaulter in respect of payment of electricity dues and he was paying a very nominal amount wards consumption of electricity. As per the provisions U/S 56(1) of the Electricity Act,2003 after service of Notice and on pending of heavy arrear outstanding dues the power supply has been disconnected. As the complainant has never approached the Ops regarding his grievances no deficiency in service can be attributed against the Ops and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. Heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for Ops and case of the complainant on merit. After consideration of the documents filed into the dispute the admitted facts of the case are that complainant was enjoying power supply from the Ops as a domestic category of consumer bearing No.01009954. It is also admitted that power supply to the complainant’s premises has been disconnected and restored by order of the Hon’ble State CDR Commission on payment of Rs.10,000/-. It is further admitted that since date of power supply the complainant-consumer is availing power supply without any meter. Complainant in his complaint petition states that he was availing power supply from the year 2002 and request many times to the Opsfor installation of a meter as no meter was installed without any meter reading, he was paying the monthly energy charges. Complainant-consumer to substantiate his pleadings regarding request to Ops for installation of a meter filed a Xerox copy of letter addressed to OP No.1 on dtd.11.09.13, which was communicated to OP No.1 through Courier Service. The Xerox copy of the courier receipt filed into the dispute. Hence, we can not disbelieve the version of the complainant regarding intimation of installation of meter to Ops.
On the other hand OP No.2 submits that as there was no meter installed in the complainant residence, the monthly energy bills were prepared on average load factor basis from March,2005 to February,2015. An arrear outstanding of Rs.1,31,741/- is pending on the complainant-consumer as arrear outstanding till February,2015. During course of submission Ld. Counsel for Ops filed a Memo that a meter bearing Serial Number-26296291 was installed on dtd.15.04.15 at the residence of the complainant and energy bills may be revised as per the meter reading.
Considering the submissions of the parties, it is clear that a meter has been installed on March,2015 and after that energy bills are prepared as per consumption of meter reading. In our opinion to end the dispute as per the provision of OERC-2004 if a revision of energy bills as per the law will fulfill the grievance of the complainant without affecting the interest of Ops. It is appeared that complainant was availing power supply from the year 2002. But the account submitted by OP No.2 show that an opening balance of Rs.13,571/-. OP No.2 to revise the bill for the period 2002 to March,2005 may take the assistance of OP No.1 i.e. Executive Engineer, CESU.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that Op No.2 after taking three(3) months consecutive meter reading starting from March,2015 to June,2015 will revise the energy bills of the complainant and will serve the revised energy bills within one month from the date of completion of average meter reading. The amount deposited by the complainant if any as per the order of the Hon’ble State CDR Commission in Revision Petition No.8/15 is to be adjusted in the revised energy bill of the complainant-consumer being Consumer Account No.1009954. Accordingly the I.A. Case No.8/15 is disposed of
The complaint is allowed on part on merit.
No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 9th day of February,2016.
