Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri B.K.Nanda and Others
Adv. For O.P :- Sri C.K.Mishra and Other
Date of filing of the Case :- 16.03.2018
Date of Order :- 17.09.2018
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
1. The case of the complainant is that, to maintain his livelihood the complainant running with a business of milling of Arua Rice which is a seasonal business. The O.P. has supplied electrical connection to the mill of the complainant and installed the meter on dated 21.11,2014. The mill started operating from the month of January 2015 and since then the complainant is paying the electricity bill regularly as per consumption. The bill amount during season is around Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- and during off season the consumption amount is around Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The complainant alleges that, the electricity supplied to the mill of the complainant is 11000 K.Vs. line and hence there is no chance of tempering with the meter, but without any basis the O.P. has suddenly raised an Additional Electricity Bill amounting to Rs. 4,83,734.16 paisa and served a demand notice on dated 7.3.2018. Alleging the Additional Bill as deficiency in service the complainant has preferred this case for redressal.
2. The O.P. contested the case by filing his written version. The O.P. denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that, the complainant is a consumer under Medium Industry category having contract demand of 9.5K.W. and accordingly power has been supplied for the purpose of rice mill/processing. As per the information of AMR cell Burla the meter of the mill was tested by the MRT staff in a routine manner with aqua-check meter and found that, the phase association of the meter was found reversed and the meter was running 41.12% less then the actual reading. Hence calculating the actual reading an additional bill amounting of Rs.4,83,734.16 was served on the complainant. The O.P. claims that he had acted as per the rules and regulation and there is no deficiency in service on his part.
3. Heard both the parties. Perused the documentary evidence available on record. In support of his case the complainant has filed the Xerox copy of letter dated 26.9.16, 28.1.17 and 31.12.17, Xerox copy of additional electricity bill and demand notice dated 7.3.2018. In support of his case the O.P. filed Xerox copy of meter testing report and billing statement.
4. Before going into the merit of the case the learned advocate of the O.P. raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the supply of electricity to the mill of the complainant is for commercial purpose and hence a consumer complaint is not maintainable. Perused the pleadings of the parties. The complainant specifically stated that, he is running with the business for maintaining his livelihood and the same has not been rebutted with believable evidence. Hence it is coming within the exception of commercial purpose. Further the dispute in this case is relating to additional bill. In his written version the O.P. has admitted that the bill is not a penal bill. Raising bills as per consumption by the distributor is a service provided to the consumer and hence a consumer complaint is maintainable.
5. Now coming to the merits of the case, It is an admitted fact that, the O.P. has raised an additional bill amounting to Rs. 4,83,734.16 P. It is also not disputed that milling of Arua Rice is a seasonal business. The O.P. has taken the stand that, the meter was running slow as per the meter test report. Perused the meter test report available on record. It is seen that, there is a comparison of reading of LT meter and accuacheck meter on the date of test. The report does not disclose the purpose of using electricity and daily working hours during season and off season. The said report also does not disclose the normal working current per phase and neutral current and also the full load current per phase and neutral current. The said report also does not bear the signature of the complainant or his agent. The O.P. has also not produce the affidavit evidence of the testing engineer or any other evidence to prove that the testing of the meter is a genuine one. Therefore this evidence available on record is not sufficient to raised an additional bill.
6. Perused the billing statement filed by the O.P. It is seen that the meter status of the complainant is in O.K. condition. It is a fact that there is less running of the mill during off season and hence it is not possible similar consumption on all times. When the meter is in O.K. condition it is the bound down duty of the O.P. to raised electricity bill as per consumption and hence raising additional bill amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
Hence Ordered
The O.P. is directed to revise the electricity bill of the complainant as per consumption from the year 2015 till date and shall not demand any additional bill. The O.P. shall not disconnect the electricity connection to the mill of the complainant till the bill is revised. There shall be no order as to cost.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open Forum to-day the 17th day of September’ 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
