Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 16th day of October 2015.
C.C.No.18 of 2015.
Braja Mohan Mishra, son of late Harihar Mishra. Resident of Malpada,
Bolangir Tow, P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Edecutive Engineer, WESCO, Bolangir.
2.S.D.O.Electrical Sub-Divn.No.1,WESCO, BOlangir.
3.Sectional Officer,WESCO,Section-1, Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Advocate for complainant- None.
Advocate for O.Ps - Sri B.S.Satpathy.
Date of filing of the case-07.03.2015
Date of order -16.10.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
Succinctly put, the complainant retaining No.911111260104 of WESCO happened to be a consumer availing the electricity since days. Complained the installed meter is in right condition and the usual bill per month continues in payment of monthly bills reegularly. But unfortunately in the month of February 2015 a bill amounting to Rs 3,237/- has been issued, followed with a notice dated 25.03.2015 to disconnect in non payment of inflated bill.
2. Further, it is complained, the bill as raised was not taking the monthly reading or not any complaint or not based any irregularity, the bill and the notice served is too illegal unsustainable and against the principle of natural justice.
3. In pursuant to notice the O.Ps appeared and remains silent not filing any version within statutory period and in too belated stage on dt.06.10.2015.
4. The O.P .filed the version contending, the complaint is strictly not coming under the concept of deficiency of service, against issued provisional billing, the complainant has not approached the O.Ps seeking procedural remedy.
5. Also stated, contents of complaint reveal the consumer under average billing and for that matter when he was being billed under smaller amount, he had no grievance but due to increase, has lodged the complaint, which is not admissible under consumer law and the consumer has to pay against the bills raised against actual consumption recorded through a meter.
6. Further submitted, the consumer was billed up to May 2012, thereafterthe meter gone defective in June 2012,so as per the regulation 97 of the O.E.R.C (distribution) condition of supply code 2004 he was billed provisionally on average till date.
7. The complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Relied with the ledger abstract with payment details in photo copies.
8. Heard and perused the material on record.
9. Perusal of record reveals, the complainant has a prayer for excessive bill which needs to be revisioned. We find the complainant is paying regularly but serve with an approach slip/D/C notice on dt.18.03.2015alleging arrear up to nil amounting to to Rs 3,266/- (three thousand two hundred and sixty six) only.
10. The documents that available in the record are photo copies of statement account relating to Account No.9111 1126 0104. That belongs to the consumer in question. The excerpts reveal the complainant has been charged with meter fault since June 2012 and average unit of 83 units, thereafter 76 units, 100 units, 200 units successively and lastly 288 from January 2015 without any reasonable basis or based on any report as per the regulation, it is ridiculously also shown meter status fault and charged with 288 unit in May 2001 and July 2002,which clearly depicts, the charged of meter fault is at its sweet will, rather without any legal basis, so the charge against the complainant is unfounded one. Again it also reveals the reading of the meter is taken on consumption pattern but sitting in at home. The entire abstract is riddled with suspicion and malicious content purported at O.P’s end, Which is not above reasonable doubt, so not acceptable? Here we can say,” raising excessive bill on ground that electric meter was faulty cannot be sustained in absence of cogent evidence and information to that effect to the consumer”.- The Assistant Ex-Engineer Vs P.J.Jose-2010(3) CPR 232.
11. As to regulation 91- In the event of any dispute in the billed amount, the consumer may lodge a complaint before the designated officer/agency as determined by the license…..The bare reading speaks the provision as made out is not mandatory one and even if it is deemed so then also the consumer reserves the right of option to exercise in other forum or law. So the consumer not committed any grievous fault not complaining before the designated officer as argued.
12. Again the same regulation 91 provides:- “Pay the average of last six months consumption or billed amount which ever is less within due date pending settlement of the dispute. The license shall resolve the dispute or communicate its decision with reasons to the consumer within a maximum period of one month as per regulation-92.
13. In the supra discussions, neither it is resolve within one month of the complain nor communicated within the reasonable period as the regulation stipulates.
14. So in our considered opinion, the bill be revised in taking 76 units per month till the date and the meter be tested by the Executive Engineer (Testing and Calibration) cum-Deputy Electrical Inspector, Bhubaneswar, Standard Testing Laboratory, Plot No.GD.2/7,MaitriViharBhubaneswar- 751023, as each others convenient time for the interest of justice.
ORDER.
(i) The O.P is directed not to disconnect the electric line any more unless until the meter is tested by Standard Testing Laboratory, Bhubaneswar.
(ii) The O.P is also further directed to revise the bill taking 76 units as average per month and issue the correct bill in coming month of October 2015 on wards till testing of the meter.
(iii ) The complainant is to pay the revisional bill in right time and co-operate with the O.Ps in testing the meter.
(iv) No order as to compensation & cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
