DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 27th day of October, 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 121 of 2016
1. Sk. Bedad Ahamad
2. Sk. Zairuddin
Both are S/o Late Sk. Umar
Vill: Bishnupurbindha
Po: Arnapal
Ps: Bhadrak (R)
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Executive Engineer, B.S.E.D,
NESCO Utility,
At: Aradi Chhak,
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
2. S.D.O, Asurali Sub-Division
NESCO Utility
At/Po: Asurali
Ps: Bhadrak (R)
Dist: Bhadrak …………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri Gopinath Dash, Advocate
Counsel For the O.Ps. : Sri Debasis Nayak, Advocate
Date of hearing: 06.03.2018
Date of order: 27.10.2018
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The complainant is a common man and a consumer under B.S.E.D, NESCO Utility, Bhadrak (O.Ps) vide old consumer No- BZ-46523 which corresponds to new consumer No- BZ-3567. The complainant is residing in a thatched house consisting of two rooms connected with power supply given by the O.Ps. The complainants use to use only two bulbs and a fan for their personal use, out of the electricity power supplied by the O.Ps. Everything was running smoothly up to year 1999 but the problem arose when the electric meter installed by the O.Ps went out of order and the O.Ps did not respond to install a new meter to ascertain the actual power consumed by the complainant despite repeated request and persuasions. The complainant became aggrieved when the O.Ps demanded payment of energy bill according to the load factor or on an average basis which was many times more than what was being paid by the complainant while the meter was in order or functioning. This process continued till installation of a new meter in the year July, 2012. But the said meter after a year or so was found defective as it gave an abnormal reading showing excessive use of power to the extent of 800 units per month which is next to impossible. The complainant has made a written request to the O.Ps which was also responded as the O.Ps did not prefer even to examine the meter with the cost of the complainant to resolve the issue to satisfaction of the complainant. On the other hand O.Ps went on submitting the energy bill exorbitantly forcing the complainant to make the payment without making any revision in the bill basing on the fake meter reading. Being disappointed by the behavior, irresponsive attitude and whimsical decision of the O.Ps to disconnect the power supply to the premises of the complainant, finding no other way the complainant raised the dispute in the Consumer Forum for proper adjudication with a prayer to replace the old one with a new meter, to revise the earlier energy bills submitted by the O.Ps and to pay cost and compensation for the litigation and for mental agony and harassment respectively.
O.Ps objected the claim of the complainant and contested the case. The O.Ps appeared through an advocate who submitted written version answering to the allegations made by the complainant. At the outset, O.Ps have raised the question of maintainability on the ground of limitation. The O.Ps have stated that that the complainant was very much irregular in making payment of energy bills and in order to suppressed the truth, he has taken false plea of meter which was out of order. But the actual fact remains that the meter was functioning properly up to year 2003 and thereafter it remained defunct up to July, 2012. Therefore the O.Ps have submitted the energy bill on actual basis till 2003 and thereafter the bills were submitted according to load factor or on average basis till installation of a new meter. It also raised by the O.Ps in stating that the complainant has neither submitted any written allegation to the O.Ps for installation of a new meter nor has personally contacted the competent authorities for resolution of the problem. Apart from above the O.Ps have also raised that the complainant has filed this case in the Consumer Forum when the remedy is available U/s 45 (3) of the relevant Act for which it should be out rightly dismissed due to ignoring the statute. That apart the complainant has taken the false plea of defects in the new meter installed in the year 2012 and has never intimated the appropriate authority about the defects as existing and has filed this case which contravenes the relevant provision of the Act and therefore liable to be dismissed.
Perused the complaint, written version submitted by the O.Ps, materials on record, heard both the parties in course of hearing and observed as narrated bellow.
1. The complainant has alleged that the meter which was installed by the O.Ps went out of order in the year 1999 which was intimated to the authorities of B.S.E.D time and again but no concrete action was initiated for installation of a new meter and prepared the bill basing on load factor and average basis. When the meter was functioning properly the average unit consumption per month was about 70 to 80 units where as the O.Ps have prepared the energy bill basing on load factor showing unit consumption @ 288 per month which is absolutely illegal and unfair. The O.Ps have claimed that the meter has become defunct in the year 2003 how they prepared the electric bill on an average basis during the year 1999 & 2000. It is surprising to note that the energy bills reveals that the authorities have prepared the bills sometime on actual basis, sometimes basing on load factor and sometimes on an average basis when there was no meter installed in the premises of the complainant. The O.Ps have agreed that the meter has out of order in the year 2003. But the bills have been prepared during the month of October, November & December 2004 on actual basis. This clearly indicates that the O.Ps have prepared the energy bills taking hypothetical figure which does not any authenticity and due to such imaginary figures as regards consumption of units the bill amount has been inflated or bulky which is non mistake of the complainant. On the other hand O.Ps vehemently opposed the submission of complainant in stating that they have never committed such a mistake as raised by the complainant. At the time of hearing the Forum has directed the O.Ps to submit the copy of the bills retained in the office which was not complied.
On perusal of records and bills submitted by the complainant, it is observed that the submission made by the complainant in course of hearing and also in the complaint holds good and the objection raised by the O.Ps could not be substantiated.
2. The complainant has alleged that the meter installed during the month of August, 2012 was also found defective as the said meter was showing huge units of consumption exceeding 700 units per month. The fact of such abnormal consumption of units showing the defective meter was also reported in writing to the O.Ps but no action was initiated to solve the problem as a result of which the meter went on showing huge units of power consumption and accordingly the bills were prepared. On the contrary the O.Ps have objected in stating that the complainant has neither intimated on the defects of new meter and has taken false plea to file this case.
Perused the materials on record and observed that the complainant during the month of January, 2016 has submitted a written petition addressing to the OP No. 2 request him to installed a new meter as the existing meter is defective one but the competent authorities on behalf of O.Ps did not take any action to installed a new meter. Hence the plea taken by the O.Ps stands void having no merit at all.
In view of the above analysis and considering after perusal of all relevant materials adduced by parties as evidence it is held that the O.Ps have grossly neglected in providing proper service to the complainant with regards to preparation of accurate bills. Therefore this case deserves to be dismissed with cost. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed against O.Ps. O.Ps are directed to revise the energy bill taking consecutive three months average after installation of a new meter and ensure payment of Rs 2,000/- as cost of litigation. This order must be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order positively.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 27th October, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
