Orissa

Rayagada

CC/258/2016

Smt. Puspa Pati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer Electrial South Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

14 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 258 / 2016.                                       Date.   14   .8. 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri Gadadhara   Sahu, .                                                                   Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                             Member

 

Smt.  Puspa  Pati,  W/O: N.R.Pati, At: Kasturinagar, 5^th.  Lane,   Po/Dist:Rayagada,State:  Odisha.            Electrical  Consumer  No.   311102050334                  

Cell No. 94382- 08303.                                                                       …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The  Executive Engineer, Electrical  Division, SOUTH.CO.,             Po/Dist: Rayagada.

2.The Sub-Divisional Officer,  Electrical Sub-Division, SOUTH.CO.,  Po/Dist: Rayagada.

.…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri V.R.M.Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri  Ashish  Panda, Deputy Manager(Legal), Rayagada.

.

J u d g e m e n t.

The  present dispute emerges out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps  for non  revision  the   excess domestic  electrical  bill   a sum of Rs.31,652/-  Vide consumer  No. .   311102050334  due to meter  defective  for which  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance through their legal Deputy Manager  and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps.   Hence the O.Ps   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                Findings.

        Undisputedly the complainant  is a consumer   under the  O.Ps  vide consumer  No.  311102050334.  Further upto  May, 2012  the complainant  had received actual  bill  and paid  to the O.Ps. Due to  defective  meter  reading  the complainant  had received bill  during the month of June,2012   a sum of Rs.15,875.00  by charging 3013  units in one month.  Accordingly the bills were served  to the complainant by the O.Ps  for the period from  June, 2012 to   May, 2015  in a defective meter reading  which  comes to Rs. 55,508..59 paisa. During the month of  May, 2015 the O.Ps had  changed  the new meter.   From June, 2015  on wards the complainant  had received actual  bill  by charging  units  as per meter reading  which are not disputed.

        During the above period  due to  disconnection the  electrial service line to the house premises  the complainant had deposited   amounts in different  dates which are mentioned  here.:-

 

 

Sl. No.	Date of deposit.	Amount.	Receipt  No.
1.	2.	3.	4.
1,	24.3.2013	Rs.  4,850/-	AB412462
2.	22.2.2014	Rs.  5,000/-	2485068
3.	27.03.2015	Rs.20,000/-	193062
4.	23.3.2016	Rs.10,000/-	270394
	Total.	Rs.39,850/-

 

        The above payment receipts  are available in the file which are marked as Annexure-I to Annexure-4 which are not disputed.

        The main grievance of the complainant is that to  quash the excess bill amount  of the  above consumer  No.  Inspite of  repeated  personal approach  the O.Ps   are   not  revised   the  electrical bill  due to  meter defect.  Hence this C.C. case.

            The O.Ps in their written  version contened  that  this  complaint  is not maintainable  at all against the O.Ps. On considering the grievances  on Dt. 24.12.2015 and statement of billing, it was dictated that during the period  from November,2012   to  March, 2015 provisional billing was done due to defective billing.  On dictation, as per the rule and regulation taking the average consumption for ten months, the bill has been revised and corrected in the month of March, 2016 considering 229 units consumption per month in place of 333 units.  After this revision there is no question of further revision.

The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps  in not   revised the  excess electrical bill  from June, 2012 to   May, 2015  after replacing the defective Meter  during the month of  May,2015    as per the  provisions laid down under section 14 of the  C.P. Act.

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  that inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the grievances of the complaint which amounts to  deficiency in service  as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the forum claiming the relief as sought for.  In that view  of the matter the O.Ps are liable.

              It is not disputed that the present complainant is a consumer  bearing consumer  No. 311102050334 as evident from the  monthly  electricity bill  submitted by the O.P.

It is held and reported in  2010 (1) CPR- 255  where  in the hon’ble  National   Commission  observed  Section-3 of the C.P. Act and Section 175 of the Electricity Act provides that they are in addition and not in derogation  of rights under any other law for the time being in force.  Therefore the C.P. Act are not affected by the Electricity Act. Consumer of electrical  energy provided   by the  company, is a  consumer   as defined under Section 2(1)(o)  of the C.P.Act and a complaint alleging any deficiency on the part of the  SOUTHCO  including any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality  nature  and manner of performance which  is required  to be   maintained by  or under any law or in pursuance of any contract in relation to service, is maintainable  under the  C.P. Act.  

The excess bill for the month of June, 2012 to   May, 2015  against the above consumer  No.  and   units  had  showed 7,000 amounts charged  Rs.71,578.61  which was  illegal as the above  consumer is  a domestic user.

            It is held and reported  SCC 2010(13) page  No.216  wherein the hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  “ Safeguards to be adopted by electricity supplier  before  charging  higher amount from the consumer.  In the instant case the forum came to the conclusion  that the complainant  had not made any attempt to tamper with the meter nor committed theft of energy. The defect was due to the negligence of the O.Ps personel and the complainant  could not be burdened for the same. In para-44 the hon’bleSupreme  Court  observed  “ It is thus, evident from the aforesaid   records of the  O.Ps  that no proper intimation of checking had been given to the  complainant, nor was any responsible officer present at the time of checking. A copy of checking report/chart was not given to the  complainant for filing of  objections nor was  any show cause notice given along with the demand  notice.  Thus, it is a clear cut case of violation of the principle of natural justice as well  as of clause-23 of the conditions of  supply.  Admittedly, no check meter had  ever been installed and thus, it could not be held that the meter did not record the quantity of energy actually consumed”.

During the course of  hearing   the complainant  argued  during the month of  June, 2012  suddenly   received  Electrical bill a sum of Rs.16,176/-  inter alia  units charged 3,013 for one month.

At the outset  of our observation, we would like to refer the Odisha Electricity Regulatory commission  Distribution  (Conditions  of supply) code 2004, chapter-V, regulations 54 to 63 dealing with power supply meter Regulations-59 (2) of the said  code mentions about testing of meters and the relevant regulation has been extracted below for reference.

            59(2) due notice to the consumer shall be served by the license to be present  during the  test.  The licensee shall have the option to carry and conclude the test in absence of  the consumer after expiry of the notice  period.  The billing  for the period  the meter  remains defective or unavailable  from the date of reporting  to the date of its installation after repair or replacement shall be revised in accordance with Regulations 97 & 98.

            Further, regarding testing and verification of accuracy of meter by the Licensee, the following  Regulations of  O.E.R.C Distribution ( Conditions  of supply) code 2004 is to be followed. The relevant  regulations  of the said   code  are extracted here under for reference.

            Regulation – 52 during the checking and verification of the electrical installation in the premises of the consumer, including the supply line and meter, a complete inventory shall be prepared of all connected equipment, apparatus, machinery, forming  integral  part of the installation  in the  premises of the consumer.  The consumer or his  representative   shall be requested to sign the  inventory  or inspection report. If the consumer or his representative refuses  to sign  the inventory or inspection report an  endorsement to that effect shall be  made by the engineer  on the body of the report.   A copy of the  said report shall be affixed at the consumer’s  premises.  In such   cases, the  consumer shall be  deemed to have been served   with a copy of the report.  Within one month of  service  of the report  as aforesaid the consumer   shall be  entitled  to complain against  the correctness of the inventory or result of the inspection to the  designated  authority of the license, who shall enquire in to the matter of the complaint and  decide on the correctness  or otherwise of the report.

Similarly, Regulation 59(5) states that in the event of any difference or dispute on the accuracy of any meter,  the same shall be decided on an application by either party  to the  Electrical Inspector.

            From simple reading of the above Regulations, it is clear that due notice to the consumer shall be served by the licensee to be   present during the test. The licensee  shall have the option  to carry out  and conclude the test in absence of the consumer  after expiry of the notice period. 

In the present case, as per the documents placed on record, it appears that the O.Ps served  electrical bill during the month of  June, 2012  charged a sum of Rs. 16,176/-  inter alia  units charged 3,013 for one month.

 

Further the Regulation 59(6) of the said supply  Code mentions the following:

            On receipt of complaints of meters running slow, running fast, creeping beyond limits,  not working or defective, a tested standard meter can be  fixed in series  with the  existing meter by the licensee. The connecting  terminals/meter boxes of both the  existing and tested standard meter shall be sealed jointly  by  Licensee’s representative and the consumer meter reading of both the meters shall be taken  jointly after some hours of operation. The accuracy of existing meter can be known by  comparing reading of both the meters for the same period. If the existing  is found to be  defective, it can be removed  to laboratory for repair and the tested  meter already available in the consumer’s premises can be fixed  in place of the existing meter.

62(1) It shall be the responsibility of the  licensee to satisfy himself regarding  the accuracy of the meter before it  is installed and  may test  them for this purpose.

62(2) The licensee shall also conduct periodical inspection/testing of the meters at site as per following  schedule or earlier. The licensee may instead of testing the meter at site can remove the meter and replace the same by a tested meter duly  tested in an accredited test laboratory.

1. Single phase meters                                       at least once every five years.
2. L.T  three phase meters                                              at least once every three years.
3. H.T/EHT meters including MDI.                                  at  least once a year.

 

62(3) Records of these test results shall be maintained in accordance with Rule-57 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 or in accordance with regulation framed under -73 of the act.

According to  Regulation 62(2) stated  above, the licensee shall conduct  periodical inspection testing of the meters at site and the  licensee may instead  of testing the meter at site can remove the meter and replace  the same by  attested meter duly   tested in an accredited test laboratory.  In the instant case the licensee before  June, 2012 never  registered any   complain  about slow  running of meter rather issued  electricity bills as per actual consumption.  Even the last Electricity bill amounting to Rs.1,005.00 placed as Annexure-5 on the case record  was issued by the O.P on May, 2012 to the complainant  and was  raised on the basis of  actual meter reading which was also paid  by the complainant. The status of meter of the said  bill of the complainant has been shown as  “LFD” which does  not mean  it is tempered. In the present case, as per the documents placed on record, it appears that the O.Ps served  electrical bill   during the month of  June, 2012  suddenly  charged a sum of Rs.16,176/-  inter alia  units charged 3,013 for one month.

In the present  the O.Ps. has not disclosed how  he assessed to ascertain that the meter was running slow  without laboratory  test.  He has  not mentioned  the device used to make the said  assessment of the meter. In our view, without standard test conducted  by an accredited test laboratory, no one is authorized  to  say  that the meter is slow or defective.  This is an contravention of the  regulations referred  above and the O.Ps also failed to  lead any convincing  documentary evidence to prove this point. When the meter  was not tested by any accredited laboratory and when there is no test report to support that, a person , however he is  expert in this regard can’t assume that the meter was running slow or defective. The O.P could have sent the  same  for laboratory test and after receipt of report he could have prepared  the provisional assessment report on the basis of slow running of the meter.

In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that  the O.P. without following mandatory requirement under  O.E.R.C. Distribution (Condition of supply) Code   2004   inspected / verified  the  meter of the complainant in his  absence. In this regard we would like to point out that the process followed by the O.P to inspect/verify the meter is not proper and not as per law, since it was not done according to  relevant  Regulations  as referred above. The procedure followed by  O.P. to inspect/verify the meter and the Meter inspection  report  suffers from irregularity and legal infirmity and not valid under law hence void.  The electrical bill  made by the O.P. based on wrong inspection report   is also not proper and it is in contravention of prescribed regulations. There is nothing placed on record to substantiate that the meter was  sent to an accredited laboratory for testing.  We would also like   to say that no one should  enjoy electricity by violating the relevant provisions of law and those  are involved  with theft of electricity should be punished heavily accordingly. But in the instant case suddenly  had sent  electrical bill a sum of Rs.16,176/- during the month of June,2012 to the complainant.  This is clearly an  act of unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps since the process  of  assessment of meter of the complainant  the seal is broken  and being  running  slow is not valid.  No standard  procedure was followed  for meter verification  and testing while ascertaining  the same, hence the  Meter Inspection report prepared by the O.P.  in absence of complainant or his authorized agent is also not valid as per law and the provisional assessment made by the O.P.  on that basis as discussed above is also legally not tenable.

In  our considered  view  the unauthorized use of electricity as alleged  against the complainant  by the O.Ps is un founded.

In view  of the decision with reference to the Section-26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and replaced by Act, 2003.   The hon’ble  Supreme court  has held in Madhya Pradesh Electricity  Board  Vrs. Basantibai   reported in AIR- 1988 page No. 71, 2007 CTJ 1 (SC) (CP) where in the hon’ble Supreme Court  observed  “In case of defective meter reference it to be made to Electrical Inspector who is competent  under section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910 to find whether the meter is  defective and if so to estimate the energy consumption for a period not exceeding  six months  prior to date of discovery of defect”.

 During the  above period the complainant  also paid energy  charges  total amounting to Rs. 40,000/- .  So the complainant is not liable to pay any energy charges to the O.Ps.

Hence to  meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.

                                                ORDER.

In   resultant  the complaint petition is  hereby allowed  in part   on contest  against the O.Ps.

The Electrical bill for the month of  April, 2019  towards Consumer No. 311102050334. charged  towards  Arrear  to the tune of Rs.31,652/-   is hereby  quashed.

The O.Ps had replaced the defective meter with a new one during the month of  May, 2015. We feel in time proper course of action  should   have been  taken by the O.Ps and for the ends of  principle of natural  justice,   we   direct  the  O.Ps  to revise the bill for the period from  June, 2012  to  May, 2015   by taking  the reading of  consumption in accordance to  New Meter  reading for the month of  June, 2015  i.e.  225  units per month.

The O.Ps are further   directed to adjust in the   bill amount in consumer No. 311102050334 which was paid by the complainant in the disputed period.

 

There  is   no order   as to cost.

The OPs    are  ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  60 days from the  date of  receipt  of the  order. Serve the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

The Interim order passed on Dt. 3.9.2016  stands vacated.

Dictated and corrected by me.                       Pronounced on this    14th.   Day of  August,   2019.

 

 

Member.                                                             Member.                                                      President