SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency-in-service against the Opposite Parties claiming compensation.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant is a domestic consumer under the Ops bearing A/c No.NN-42928/D since February, 1999. It is stated by the complainant that the power supply was discontinued till September, 2005 when the bill amount accrued to Rs.2510.40 paisa. As the meter was defective, monthly bill have been issued from October, 2005 on the load factor basis @ 144 units per month for six months i.e. up to March, 2006 and thereafter bill was supplied @ 288 units per month on the same ground as defective meter till November, 2009 and also thereafter @ 144 units per months till date although there is a meter bearing No.NESCO 273676 installed in the premises. Without taking meter reading, arrears being accrued to a huge amount of Rs.9,100/- in the month of January, 2006. In order to rectify the above erroneous bills, the complainant requested the Ops several times, but in vain. Thereafter, the village consumer committee has interfered into the matter and the complainant was asked to pay Rs.10,000/- subject to condition that power supply shall be resumed through a new meter and taking into consideration the load factor for three months, bills shall be revised and the payments made will be adjusted. Thus, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 27.9.2014 vide M/R No.26205/260895. Thereafter, the complainant used to pay monthly bill amount as per meter reading from November, 2014 to January, 2015. It is stated that the new meter was installed on 10.1.2015. In the meantime, three months have already been passed, but the Ops did not take any step for rectification of previous electric bills, rather, they threatened to disconnect the power supply to his premises. It is stated that he used to consume hardly 50 to 60 units per months, but the Ops have claimed high amount on the basis of 288 units per month. On 27.9.2014, the complainant made application to OP No.1 and approached OP No.2 stating that after revision of the arrear energy bill, he will pay the balance amount, who assured him to do the needful, but slept over the matter. Hence, the Ops have committed deficiency in service in rectifying the energy bills. Hence, this case.
3. In the present case, Ops made their appearance and filed their joint version admitting the consumership of the complainant under them and stated, inter alia, that the complainant has paid Rs.70/- vide MR No.596226 dated 23.2.2004, so the question of disconnection of power supply to his premises till September, 2005 does not arise at all. It is a fact that the complainant was availing power supply by unauthorized manner and after lapse of 10 years the complainant has moved this Commission. As per opinion of the JM (Elect), Nilgiri the installed old meter was inside his premises when replaced with a new meter. The complainant has not allowed the meter reader and the installed place of meter was always in locked position for which the meter reader could not generate energy bill in actual basis up to November, 2007. On verification of the premises during November, 2005, unauthorized consumption was detected and penal bill were imposed amounting to Rs.8,857.20 paisa to his account in January, 2006. Further, the complainant has not visited the office of Ops at any point of time nor has made any grievance petition. The complainant used to consume around 100 units per month from January, 2008 to May, 2009. The complainant has also not paid a single amount since May, 2004 to August, 2014. It is stated by the Ops that the complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- on 30.9.2014 and then a new meter was installed in his premises on 5.1.2015 and accordingly bills have been served on him. Hence, it is prayed by the Ops to dismiss the case.
4. In view of the above pleading of both the parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether this consumer case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
5. The complainant has placed documents viz estimate for supply of energy to his premises marked as Annexure-1, Statement of bills from 5/2002 to 12/2014 marked as Annexure-2 & Energy Bills for the month of December, 2011, November, 2014, December, 2014, January, 2015 along with payment receipts dated 29.11.2014, 27.12.2014, 31.1.2015 & 24.2.2015 marked as Annexure-3 series. On the other hand, Ops have placed one statement of Bill from the month of 5/2002 to 2/2015 marked as Annexure-A & Revised energy bill from 5/2002 to 8/2024 dated 30.9.2024 marked as Annexure-B.
6. First of all, on perusal of the Statement of energy bill submitted by the complainant vide Annexure-2 with reference to the Statement of energy bill vide Annexure-A & Revised energy bill vide Annexure-B, it is clearly made out that for the month of 11/2005, 1/2006, 3/2006 and from 12/2009 to 12/2014, the energy bill was made basing on the average of 144 units per month and from 5/2006 to 11/2009, the energy bill was made basing on the average of 288 units per month. But prior to the month of 11/2005, no monthly units said to have been mentioned in the column provided for the purpose, that too it was prepared in the interval of one month. In the said Statement of energy bill under Annexure-2, Annexure-A & B, it is also made out that the energy bill for the month of 12/2005, 2/2006, 4/2006, 6/2006, 8/2006, 10.2006, 12/2006, 2/2007, 4/2007, 6/2007, 8/2007, 10.2007, 12/2007, 2/2008, 4/2008, 6/2008, 8/2008, 10.2008, 12/2008, 2/2009, 4/2009, 6/2009, 8/2009, 10.2009 were missing and this omissions supposed to have been committed by the Ops.
7. It is claimed by the Ops that the complainant has not allowed the meter reader to take meter reading for which actual energy bill could not be supplied till 11/2007, but verified the consumer premises during 11/2005 and detected unauthorized consumption of energy by the complainant and a penalty of Rs.8,857.20 paisa was imposed on him which was debited to his account in January, 2006. In this connection, the Ops have failed to produce no such document to prove that in the month of 11/2005, the premises of the complainant was verified and the aforesaid penalty was imposed on him. In this aspect, no reliance can be placed on the above controverted version of the Ops stated in their version with regard to the fact that the complainant has locked the installation place of meter for which the meter reader could not approach the meter for taking actual consumption of energy and the energy bill was not generated till 11/2007 whereas the premises of the complainant was verified in the month of 11/2005. Further, no document is also placed by the Ops purported to have been submitted by the so called meter reader who could not have approached the meter for taking actual meter reading till 11/2007.
8. The Ops have further mentioned in their version that the meter reader has taken meter reading from 1/2008 to 5/2009 and the monthly consumption was found to have been around 100 units per month. If that be so, the Ops have not stated a single word nor submitted at the time of hearing, under what circumstances they have calculated energy bill for the aforesaid period showing that the complainant has consumed 288 units per month other than 100 units per month. Besides the above, it is stated by the Ops that on deposit of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant on 30.9.2014, they have installed new meter on 1/2015. No such document is placed by the Ops, but on perusal of the Annexure-A & B, it is found that the complainant consumed 75 units in the month of 1/2015 and 24 units in the month of 2/2015. Thus, it is presumed that the complainant used to consume electric energy less than 100 units per month and not 100 units per month, as claimed by the Ops. Besides the above, from the averments made in their version, one thing is clear that the Ops have sufficient knowledge about the defect occurred in the meter of the complainant since 11/2005. As per Section 97(iii)(b)of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019, the licensee/ supplier shall replace the defective or the meter not complying with the above mentioned standards within next billing cycle of its detection, even if not replaced by the consumer. In no case, provisional billing shall continue for more than two billing cycle at a stretch, whatsoever may be the reason. In the present case, when the Ops have admitted that they had been to the premises of the complainant in the month of 11/2005 and imposed penalty on him and since then they have calculated energy bill @ 144 & 288 units per month and that too, violating the mandate of law, which otherwise held to be deficient.
9. But, at the same time, on perusal of the Annexure-B, the revised statement of bills prepared by the Ops, it is found that the entire energy bill from the month of 5/2002 to 8/2024 has already been revised and it is claimed that the complainant is required to pay a sum of Rs.4,646.99 Paisa as on August, 2024. From the above, it is quite clear that the very purpose of filing of the case by the complainant must have fulfilled. In view of the above revision of energy bills in respect of the complainant, the complainant is hereby instructed to pay a sum of Rs.4,646.99 paisa to the Ops and to obtain receipt thereof and the Ops are also hereby instructed to receive the amount as stated above in Annexure-B and supply the receipt to the complainant in token of payment of arrear energy bill till the month of August, 2024. Had the Ops been revised the energy bill in time, the complainant could not have any occasion to move the door of this Commission. But, as it is seen, the Ops have revised the energy bill in the month of September, 2024 i.e. during the pendency of this case. The main purpose of filing the present case by the complainant is for revision of energy bill which has already been complied by the Ops, it may be at the fag end of the case. Still then, it cannot be said that the Ops are not deficient in rendering their service to a consumer. Hence, they are held guilty for their deficiency in service and for that they are required to be penalized.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation & litigation cost to the complainant and further the O.Ps are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- in favour of Odisha Consumer Welfare Fund and the receipt thereof shall be deposited before this Commission, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant so also the appropriate authority shall take appropriate remedy as per law.
Copy of this order be submitted to the Principal Secretary, F.S & C.W Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and to the Secretary, State C.D.R Commission, Odisha, Cuttack for their kind information & necessary action at their end.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 12th day of November, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
