DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                                   C.C NO.16 OF 2015

Present:    

                       Sri Rabindranath Mishra         - President.

                       Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik   - Member.

Jayaram Dakua, aged about 60 years,

Son of Late Dyutikrushna Dakua,

AT Peonpada (Shantinagar),

PO/PS: Phulbani, Dist: Kandhamal                           ……………….  Complainant.

                    Versus.

1. Executive Engineer, SOUTHCO. Phulbani

    At.F.C.I, Square, Phulbani

    PO/PS: Phulbani Town, Dist: kandhamal.

    AT/ PO/PS: Phulbani, Dist: kandhamal.

2. Junior Engineer, SOUTHCO. Phulbani,

   At Jiringpada Square,

   PO/PS:Phulbani Town, Dist : Kandhamal .       ……………..  OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant:   Self.

For the OPP. Parties:  Self.

Date or Order: 13-10-2015

O R D E R

                                   The case of the Complainant in short is that he is a Consumer bearing Consumer no. 1002/B-578/1 under the Opposite Parties. He was depositing the electric dues regularly but in the month of May 2015 he had received the bill for the month of April 2015 to deposit Rs. 5,412/- on 27-05-2015. In the said Bill Rs. 4,641/- is mentioned on the column of arrear. The Complainant approached the Opposite Parties to correct the bill but they remained silent. On 27-05-2015 he proceeded to the office of the O.P No.2 to deposit the current bill excluding the arrear amount, but he was not allowed to deposit the same. As he is under B.P.L category it was not possible on his part to deposit the entire amount. Hence, the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service on their part for which this complaint is filed by him for a direction to the O.Ps to rectify the bill for the month of April 2015 and to weaive out the arrear amount of Rs. 4,641/- . He also claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for his mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation fees.

                                                                                                               -2-

                                  The case of the Opposite Parties as per their joint version is that the disputed amount of Rs. 4,641/- shown against the arrear column was just and proper. The Complainant has deliberately suppressed the Consumption but the way and means not known to the Opposite Parties for which the bills were prepared for a long span of time as average basis. The supervisor of billing agency named Axiom computer found the error and report the same for correction of bills as per actual consumption. The bill has been prepared on average basis from March 2013 to December 2014 .After verification the meter status was O.K as on December 2014. Hence, the bill from January 2015 were prepared on actual consumption basis. The bills of consumer were regularized by revising each bill since the date of defect i.e on March 2013 to December 2014. The old meter was changed with a new digital meter on 20-06-2015 and the present consumption is much higher than the old meter. Hence, the allegation of deficiency in service is not proper and they prayed to drop the case.

                                    We have heard the Complainant and the authorized representative of the Opposite Parties Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Choudhury of Southco, Phlbani. We have perused the complaint, the version of the Opposite Parties and the copies of the documents filed by both the parties in support of their case. It is admitted by the Opposite parties that the bills of the Consumer were prepared on average basis from March 2013 to December 2014. It is also admitted by the Opposite Parties that the meter status of the Complainant was OK as on December 2014. So we are unable to understand the reason of preparing average Bills for 22 months continuously. Moreover It is seen from the Bills submitted by the Complainant for the Month of May 2014, June 2014, July2014, August 2014, September 2014 and October 2014 that the same were prepared on Regular basis .So there is clear contradiction regarding the plea of the version and the Bills prepared by the OPP. Parties . It amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPP. Parties. It is seen from the Bill for the Month of April 2015 that an amount of Rs. 4641-13 was claimed as arrears by Southco which is not sustainable as per law. The Complainant is coming under BPL category. It is not proper to pay the said arrears on the part of the Complainant when he has deposited all the dues in every month as per bill submitted by the Opp. Parties. There is no suitable evidence for impositions of the said arrears against the Complainant.

                                    In the above circumstances the C.C is allowed in part and the OPP. Parties are directed to waive out the arrears of Rs.4641-13 shown in the Bill of April 2015 of the Complainant as illegal. As far as the present bill is concerned the Complainant is directed to pay the electric bills as claimed from the month of October 2015. He is also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- in every month towards the arrears amount excluding the amount of Rs. 4641-13 till clearance of the arrears dues.

                                                                                                              -3-

                                    The Opp. Parties are further directed to accept the amounts from the Complainant as per the said order and comply the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order other-wise the Complainant shall be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5000/- from the OPP. Parties .

                                    The C.C is accordingly disposed of. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.  

                                                                                              MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT