DATE OF DISPOSAL: 11.01.2024

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his  grievance before this Commission.

2. The O.P. is the provider of electricity to the premises of the applicant. The O.P. fixed a meter in the building and levy charges for the electrical consumption and the electricity consumer number of the complainant is 341001020802 (C.P. 1083). The applicant was paying the electricity bills regularly but since the month of June 2016 the complainant received the electricity bills for Rs.5391 till Feb 2017. She was surprised as the bills were all same. So the complainant approached the O.P. and presented an application for the rectification of the meter but the O.P. did not act. The applicant paid all the electricity bills up to Feb-2017 and in the month of March-2017 the O.P. send a demand note dated 16.03.2017 asking the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.65,171.00 at an earliest with a calculation sheet of revised bill with a remark of the meter being O.K. Earlier the O.P. was sending bills to the complainant wherein the status of the meter was shown as “F” i.e. code worded for the negative reading of the meter. The bill for June 2016 was shown as 1-1 and they levied Rs.5721/- P.M. and since thereafter Rs.5571/- P.M. till Feb 2017. The bill for the month of July 2016 came with a mention of code word “L” (house locked). The premises never under lock and key as it is the basement of the apartment (Tower) of 60 flats. From the month of August-2016 though the meter reading was taken by the bill boy but the bill was provided with a mention of provisional “for the month of June 2016 and thereafter “average” till Feb 2017. If the bill provided to the complainant denotes nil consumption and the meter reading was shown 7489 units then how the same O.P. provided the calculation sheet of the meter reading. The O.P. manufactured the calculation sheet unfairly. The O.P. also erred in providing the bills for the months of June 2016 to Feb-2017 with a mention of house lock ‘O.K’ and negative reading and now the same authorities out rightly declared the negative reading meter as O.K. and provided various meter reading and levied a demand of Rs.65,171/-. The set of facts are nothing but unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. The complainant is prejudiced due to the belated and illegal demand of Rs.65,171/- for past 10 months because the complainant is the secretary of the apartment of 60 flat owner out of which many are tenants. Many tenants have vacated the rented flat and the old electricity dues could not be recovered from them as the monthly bill is borne equally by 6 flat owners for lift, common passage, entrance light, parking lighting and getting water pump. So due to the unfair trade practice inefficiency, negligence and dereliction in duty the O.P. cannot levy electricity bill and demanded payment thereof according to their will and pleasure. The present bill with a demand of Rs.65,171/- is unfair and created one and that is to be set off as the complainant has already paid the bill up to dates. The demand notice, coupled with a created meter reading and bluffing the same meter to be wrong and OK created mental agony on the part of the complainant and she demands a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and expenses and costs of the case.

3. The O.P. filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint are not all correct as such the complainant is put to strict proof of all such allegations, which are not specifically admitted herein. The present complaint is filed by the complainant challenging the revised bill issued by the O.Ps along with the compensation etc. are not maintainable in law, as such the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed. The allegations made in the complaint are partly correct so far as the issuance of the revised bill made by the O.P. in favour of the complainant. The meter number SP000192 is installed at the time of providing power supply and the same meter is in existence. The meter in question is having 4 digit meters along with MF/1. From the date of installation of the meter, the meter is running properly and the bill is generated on actual meter reading up to 5/2016. During the month of 6/2016 the consumer was demanded through the bill on provisional basis i.e. 782 units from the month 7/2016 to 2/2017. Technically the meter is completed 9 rounds during the period 4/2017.From the above statement it is clear that the 1^st round of the digits completed during 4/2012 and 2^nd round completed during 9/2012, 3^rd round completed in the month of 3/2013 and 4teh r4ound completed during the month 12/2016.  From the above technicalities the bills are issued on provisional basis etc. and after examination of the billing statements the bill has been revised on average basis taking the previous correct reading for the period 6/2016 to 2/2017 and amount of Rs.65,171/- has been demanded to the consumer. The bill is properly revised as per the actual consumption made earlier and there is no error of demand made by the O.P. and the consumer is liable to pay the revised bill amount in order to avail power supply. In para-5 of the complaint petition are also not at all correct and these allegations are invented for the purpose of the case without any evidence and it is not the responsibility of the supply engineer to know the real occupier of the flat at the consumer in whose favour the consumer number is in existence, he is liable to pay the amount.  The present application is not maintainable in law as the complainant has challenged the correctness of the meter basing upon the reading shown in the meter the bill has been revised and it at all the consumer is dissatisfied about the technical defects of the meter or accuracy of the meter, then the meter musts be sent to the Electrical Inspector, who is the authority under the Act to decide the dispute in this nature. There is no deficiency in service made by the O.P. while rendering service to the consumer. The complainant is not coming under the purview of the consumer for which the present complaint is not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed. Hence the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case with cost and vacate the Interim Order dated 13.04.2017 in the interest of justice.

4. On the date of hearing, the Ld. Counsels for opposite party was present but the complainant found absent. We heard on the point of issues. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 expressed the law that, where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum, the District Forum may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits. Accordingly, the District Commission decided to dispose of the complaint on merit. We have perused the complaint, written version, written arguments and documents available in the case records minutely. On analyzing of evidence filed by the parties, it is apparent that, the complainant challenged the L.No.:1758(4)/Date:16.03.2017 issued by the opposite party demanded to pay Rs.65171/- to avoid disconnection of power supply. Accordingly, the District Forum (District Commission) stayed the operative part of the said letter in interim measure. The case record reveals that, the complainant filed a grievance letter vide No.:05/2016, Dtd:15.12.2016 which was not consider by the opposite party as per statutory law immediately. By not issued the actual consumption bill for the said period as per statutory law, the opposite party rendered deficient services to the complainant. Further, the bills which were issued provisional/average to the complainant clearly discloses that, the status of the meter shown as ‘L’ i.e., house lock. It speaks volumes against the opposite party. While issuing electricity connection to the multistoried building, there is a primary condition as per Reg. 56 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 that, the meter shall be fixed in multi-storied buildings where it will be easily accessible for reading and inspection at any time. In the present case, the meter no.: SP000192 is also installed in the basement of the apartment ‘Majhigouri Tower’. And it is very clear from such law that, the basement was easily accessible for meter reading and inspection at any time otherwise, the connection may not be allowed. Thus the bill which was issued during the period June 2016 till December 2016 in every month, the opposite party has not visited the premises of the complainant for reading of the meter and generated the bills in his office as provisional/average only to harass the complainant. Not reading of meter by the opposite party is in violation of Reg. 60 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 and it is tantamount to deficiency in services. After three months of submission of letter by the complainant, the opposite party issued L.No.1758/dated:16.03.2017 demanded revised bill amount of Rs.65171/- for the provisional periods i.e., 06/2016 to 02/2017. The complainant doubts that, why actual consumption bills were not issued in every month. Further, non-redressal of complaint made by the present complainant prior to filling of the case about consumer’s bills within stipulated period as contemplated under clause V of the Schedule - I in OERC (Licensees’ Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2004 is a failure to meet the Guaranteed Standards of Performance specified by the opposite party and for which the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for such delay at the rate of Rs.100/- per day from the date of receipt of the letter dated:15.12.2016/Letter no.:05/2016.  Hence, the complainant termed it as also deficiency in services.

To save its own skin, the opposite party has taken different pleas in the present case in absence of any corroborative documents regarding completion of 9 rounds during the period 4/2017 and finally the 9^th round was completed during the month of 12/2016 in accordance to the written version filed accompanied with an affidavit dated:17.07.2017. But the same information has not disclosed in the L.No.:1758(4)/Date:16.03.2017 by the opposite party while demanding the revised amount. The opposite party did not approach this quasi-judicial forum in clean hand. The case in hand attracts the Doctrine of clean hands. Thus, one who seeks the aid of equity must come into Court with clean hands. Hence a clear inference can be drawn in the instant case that, the opposite party has not approached the Commission in clean hands. In the landmark case of Ramjas Foundation &Anr. v. Union of India & Others, (2010) 14 SCC 38, Hon’ble Apex Court has univocally held as under –

“21. The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Article 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in other Courts and Judicial Forums.”

Therefore, the principle laid down in the above case is very much applicable to the present case and relying upon the Ramjas (Supra) the Commission is left with no alternative but to dismiss the version of the opposite party against the Complainant.

In the instant case, in view of the above analysis, the opposite party rendered deficient services to the complainant since June 2016 by not issuing the monthly electricity consumption bill on the actual bill basis whereas there was no restriction to reading the units from the meter and .claiming of such huge amount after nine months to the complainant is just a penalty. The opposite party should be provided the monthly electricity consumption bill on the actual consumption of the energy basis in accordance to the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004.Due to arbitrary action of the opposite party and not discharge its duty in accordance with the law, the complainant sustained injury.

In the result, in our considered views the complaint is allowed against the opposite party on contest. In view of the above deficient services and failure to meet the Guaranteed Standards of Performance by the opposite party, the complainant is not required to pay further amounting of Rs.65171/- to the opposite party in reference to the L.No.:1758/dated:16.03.2017 hence it is hereby deleted. Further the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.100/- per day from the date of receipt of the Letter No.:05/2016, Dated: 15.12.2016 in accordance to the Schedule-III of the OERC (Licensees’ Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2004 till the date of issue of Letter No.:1758(4)/Date:16.03.2017 within 45 days of receipt of this Order from the Commission failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the entire dues which shall be carried at the rate of 12% pa from the date of filling of the case i.e. on 13.04.2017 from the opposite party in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The interim order is pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to the respective parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the copy of this order be downloaded from www.confonet.nic.in to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 11.01.2024