Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a consumer under the OPs having meter installed by the OPs in the month of October, 1999 but after the meter installed, it was again damaged due to super cyclone. After the meter installed the OPs issued bill for the month of 11/99 to 1/02 on average basis of 2 KW showing the meter defective. It also alleged that complainant has approached the OPs for correction of the bill but the OPs did not listen to it. Thereafter, the complainant paid part of the arrears. However, another meter was installed on 23.1.2002. After the meter was installed complainant requested for revision of the bill but the OPs did not listen same. So complaint was filed.
4. OPs filed written version stating that no meter was installed in October, 1999 and as such on load factor basis bill was being issued from October, 1999 to February, 2002. As such, there was arrear bill of Rs.12,073/- pending till February, 2002 pending but the complainant paid Rs.6,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant again defaulted for making payment. Finally, notice was issued to pay Rs.19,177.90. So, there was no such deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
5. After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint petition of the complainant is allowed on contest against the OPs. with cost. The OPs are directed to revise electric bill of the petitioner from 11/99 to 12/01 by taking two months consumption pattern after installation of the new meter on 23.1.2002. The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-to the petitioner towards the compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of the order.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as the meter was defective, bill was being raised on load factor basis in accordance with OERC Code, 1998. There is no error with the OPs but the learned District Forum without appreciating the facts and law directed to revise the bill. It is further submitted that the meter has been installed and accordingly, the complainant has to pay the arrear. Hence, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that it is admitted fact that the complainant was consumer under the OPs. It appears that the bill for the period from 11/99 to 12/01 has been admitted by the OPs. Anyhow complainant has admitted to have paid part payment but not the entire payment. When the complainant has arrear, such amount has to be paid by the complainant. When arrear has not been payable, there is no any illegality in demanding the arrear and it is admitted case of the complainant that he has not paid the arrear demanded by the OPs. In such circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs but the complainant has defaulted in payment of the bill amount. Therefore, we do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.
The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
