DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;BHADRAK

……………

C.D.Case No.23 of 2015

Sri Rajakishore Nayak, aged 32 years,

S/o: Sri Rabindra Kumar Nayak,

At: I.T.I.(Smashan Road), PO: Charampa,

PS: Bhadrak Rural, Dist:Bhadrak

                                             ………………..Complainant

                      (Vrs.)

1.         The Executive Engineer, Electrical

            At: Bhadrak Bypass Road,

            PO/Dist:Bhadrak

2.         The S.D.O., Electrical, Bhadrak-I,

            At:Bhadrak Bypass Road,

            PO/Dist:Bhadrak

3.         The Junior Engineer, Charampa Electrical Section,

            At/PO:Charampa, Dist:Bhadrak

                                             …………………..Opp.Parties

Order No.11 dt.20.11.2015:

            The Complainant who is a consumer of electricity bearing No.BC-86455D(421105240165) has filed this case on 03.03.2015 alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

            The case of the Complainant is that he is a consumer of electricity since 28^th December, 2007. He uses electricity for lights, fan and one T.V. only. According to Complainant the staff of O.Ps reached the premises of the Complainant and demanded Rs.1240/- without serving any energy bill. The Complainant without any objection paid Rs.1240/- to O.Ps vide M.R.No.080004 dt.11.12.2008. Thereafter, the Complainant received 1^st energy bill for January,2009 amounting to Rs.4,842/- and the due date of payment was 27^th February,2009. There was no mention of payment made by Complainant on 11.12.2008 in the said 1st energy bill. Complainant received 2^nd energy bill for March & April, 2009 on 19.05.2009 amounting to Rs.5,084/-. Again the Complainant received 3^rd bill for the period from May,2009 to October,2009(6 months) amounting to Rs.6,032/- on 16.11.2009. Similarly, 4^th energy bill was issued to Complainant for the period from November,2009 to January,2010 on 13.02.2010 amounting to Rs.6,223/-. The Complainant being suffocated with such irregular bill with exorbitant amount presented his written grievance to O.P.No.2 on 18.02.2010 through O.P.No.3 praying therein for revision of bill with an undertaking to clear the genuine dues. The O.P.No.2 forwarded the written grievance to O.P.No.3, who visited the house of the Complainant and submitted his report on 18.02.2010 to O.P.No.2 for revision of bill considering the meter reading from the date of power supply. The Complainant also paid Rs.1,700/- on 18.02.2010  vide M.R.No.423115 and the same has been reflected in the subsequent bill. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the office of O.Ps several times to expedite the action. Complainant has also paid Rs.719/- on 13.12.2010 vide M.R.No.369780. So also the Complainant has paid Rs.4,500/- to O.Ps vide M.R.No.597489 dt.23.03.2013. However, the Complainant received a bill on 30.01.2015 for 23 months amounting to Rs.48,581/-.  According to Complainant he has visited hundred times to the office of O.Ps for revision of bill but in vain. The O.Ps issued the last bill on 20.02.2015 amounting to Rs.49,877/- on average consumption basis. The Complainant feeling helpless, presented his written grievance before O.P.No.3 on 25.02.2015 for revision of bill and installation of a new meter in his house. But the O.P.No.3 bluntly refused to receive the application unless the Complainant clears the entire amount arbitrarily reflected on the last bill.  So alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps, the Complainant filed this case praying for a direction to O.Ps to revise the bill adjusting the payment made, to issue bills every month regularly, to replace the defective meter, to reduce the load from 2 kw to 1 kw and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment besides payment of litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to him.

            O.Ps in their written version stated that prior to filing the complaint petition, the Complainant has never submitted any complaint before the O.Ps. The Complainant has been availing power supply since 2008 till date without any interruption. The Complainant never made any application under Reg-91 of OERC Distribution & Supply Code,2004 before the designated officer nor has approached the Grievance Redressal Forum as per Sec.42(5) of the Electricity Act,2003. So far as defective meter is concerned, it is clearly allowed by the OERC Guideline to raise the bill on Provisional/Average consumption basis. The Complainant is very much irregular in payment of monthly electricity bill. As per the office record, the Complainant for 02/2008 till 06/2016 has paid the electricity bill only four times within 7 years. However, in present situation, a correct new meter has already been installed on 27.08.2015. Hence, the question of deficiency of service does not arise.

            We have heard the Ld.Counsel for the Complainant and the authorized representative of O.Ps.  During pendency of the case, apprehending disconnection of power supply the Complainant had filed an interim petition on 04.03.2015 for a direction to O.Ps not to disconnect power supply. Accordingly, order was passed directing O.Ps to restrain from disconnection of power supply till their appearance. As such, the Complainant is availing uninterrupted power supply. Ld.Counsel for Complainant submitted that the O.Ps have failed to provide the revised bill in spite of Complainant’s repeated requests by adjusting the payments made and  erratic bills are being supplied by the O.Ps. The authorized representative of O.Ps contended that the Complainant is not regular in payment of bills and so far in 7 years he has paid 4 times for which he is not entitled any relief. Further, the Complainant has not approached the O.Ps for revision of bills.

            We have perused the documents filed by the Complainant such as meter testing fee paid vide receipt No.675311 dt.16.11.2007, money receipts towards payment of electricity charges, 14 nos. of electricity bills issued to Complainant, Complainant’s grievance petition dt.18.02.2010, Report of J.E. dt.18.02.2010 and the grievance petition dt.25.02.2015. Admittedly, no billing statement nor any document has been filed by the O.Ps in support of their case. O.Ps have raised the question that the Complainant has  never made any application under Reg-91 of OERC Distribution & Supply Code,2004 before the designated officer towards disputed/erroneous bills. On perusal of Annexure-3 filed by the Complainant it goes to show that the Complainant in his letter dt.18.02.2010 has made an application under Reg-91 of OERC Distribution & Supply Code,2004 before the designated officer(O.P.No.2) for  revision of the disputed bill. Accordingly, the O.P.No.2 directed O.P.No.3 to submit detail verification report of the consumer.  It is revealed from the said verification report No.546 dt.18.02.2010 of the O.P.No.3 that power supply was provided to the premises of the Complainant on 28.12.2007 and Anchor make Meter bearing Sl.No.1066456 was installed on 28.12.2007 with connected load of 0.90 KW. The Complainant has received first bill for the month of January,2009( 2 months) showing consumption of 51 units( 658-607=51 units) amounting to Rs.104.26 paise. In the said bill arrear of Rs.5,411.26 paise has been reflected. If at all power supply was provided to the premises of the Complainant on 28.12.2007, how he consumed 658 units in a month and how arrear of Rs.5,411.26  was accumulated without any power supply ?  Further, this fact finds support from the letter No.546 dt.18.02.2010 (detail verification report of the consumer) of O.P.No.3 sent to O.P.No.2 filed by the Complainant. In the remarks column of the said verification report, the O.P.No.3 has stated that “considering the meter reading from the date of power supply, the bill may be revised”. If there was no error in the bill how the O.P.No.3 recommended for revision of bill from the date of power supply? In the said verification report, it has been stated that previous connected load was 0.90 KW and present connected load after verification is 0.90 KW. On perusal of bills filed by Complainant, it goes to show that the present connected load of Complainant is 2.00 KW. Here, the question arises if the previous connected load was 0.90 KW and after verification on 18.02.2010 it was detected 0.90 KW by O.P.No.3, then  under what circumstances bill from March,2010 to April,2010 was issued by the O.Ps on 21.05.2010 indicating  connected load  of  2.00 KW ? So it needs reduction of load from 2.00 KW to 1.00 KW. Further, it is found that bills are not being issued every month.  Regulation 60 of OERC,2004 provides that reading of meter shall be taken by qualified persons authorized by the licensee at the intervals of one month or a period not exceeding two months in respect of LT Domestic consumers. But the O.Ps have served bills at a time for six months and above. One bill dt.30.01.15 has been issued for 23 months.  Admittedly, new meter has been installed by the O.Ps on 27.08.2015 replacing the old meter installed in the premises of the Complainant on 28.12.2007. So there is no obstacle on the part of O.Ps to revise the bill raised on  load factor basis from January,2015 till 27.08.2015 taking 3 months reading. All these things taken together go to show that the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service. Accordingly, it is ordered:

O R D E R

            Resultantly, the complaint is allowed in part against the O.Ps on contest. The O.Ps are directed to waive out/revise the arrear of Rs.5,411.26 shown in the  1^st bill  i.e. January,2009 based on the detail verification report dt.18.02.2010  made by O.P.No.3. The O.Ps are also directed to revise the bill from January,2015 to 27.08.2015 taking three months average reading  of the new meter and to provide a revised bill adjusting total  payment made by the Complainant amounting to Rs.8,159/-. Further, the O.Ps are directed to reduce the load from 2.00 KW to 1.00 KW as per the aforesaid verification report and to serve energy bill every month to the Complainant. The aforesaid directions are to be complied with by the O.Ps within 30 days of receipt of this order. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.