DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.10.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant is a bonafide consumer of the TPSODL vides account No. 13412038124 and Bill No. 341140923000041. The complainant paid all the dues as consumed regularly and not defaulted. The complainant regularly paid as per bill given by the TPSODL, Gopalpur. The TPSODL intentionally to distribute the bills to the consumer in short period so also long period to extract more money from the consumer on different time. For the month of August the TPSODL has issued a bill for 37 days instead of 30 days. The Company has intentionally given 7 days extra to get more money in higher slabs to extract the money from the consumer which is hard on part of the complainant to pay the higher slab cost to TPSODL. The company intentionally prepared the bill to extract money from the complainant without given proper service to the bonafide consumer due to their negligence the consumer suffer irreparable loss and mental agony and the company provided deficiency of service. Hence the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to rectify the bills and give monthly basis bill and pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.
4. The O.Ps filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the instant complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eye of law. The material allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition are all not true, valid and binding on the O.Ps. The averments as made out in the complaint are all denied, except those which are specifically admitted here under, and the complainant is put to strict proof of all such allegations which are not specifically admitted. The present complainant is the consumer of TPSODL having Consumer No. 341202300134. In para-2 and 3 of the complaint petition that the O.Ps intentionally issued the bill for 37 days instead of one month to extract money from the consumer is false in toto and hereby denied by the O.Ps. Due to strike of the union of meter reading team for Bhanjanagar accident in which one of the meter reader died by brutal attack by one consumer, the billing was started late for which the complainant got 37 days bill. The information of the billing agency, Supreme Power Services to the authorized person of the Reading and Billing Department of the O.P.No.3 regarding the delay in billing for the month of August 2023 is enclosed as Annexure-1. Reg.109(1) of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of supply) Code, 2019 provides that till the introduction of Smart or pre-paid meter the meter shall normally be read on fixed date ±3 working days for monthly billing cycle. So as per the above provision of OERC Regulation, admittedly there is a delay of 4 days in the billing cycle for the month of August 2023, but that delay was not neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay was occurred only due to the strike of the meter readers for the pathetic unnatural death their meter reader friend at Bhanjanagar. It is apt to state here that in the next billing month the bill was served for the billing cycle of 30 days. It is further brought to the knowledge of the Commission that Reg. 157 of the OERC Code, 2019 provides that “In case the consumer disputes any billing procedure, he/she may approach the licensee/supplier through complaint handling procedure for redressal of his grievance, which will be resolved within two weeks. In case he/she is not satisfied with the decision of the licensee/supplier in this regard he/she has the liberty to again approach the Grievance Redressal Forum or Ombudsman as per the relevant Regulations of OERC”. So as per aforesaid provision of OERC regulation, the complainant has to approach the license through complaint handling procedure for redressal of her grievance and if the grievance is not redressed within 2 weeks, then the consumer had to approach the GRF and then Ombudsman. But in this case the complainant without approaching the licensee/ the Opposite Parties filed the present case before this Commission; as such the present case filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law. Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case.
5. To prove the case the complainant filed evidence on affidavit and written argument by both the parties.
6. On the date of hearing, the complainant in person was present and whereas the advocate for the O.Ps was present. The Commission heard from both the parties on the point of issues at length and perused the complaint, counter version, and maintainability petition of the O.Ps, evidence on affidavit of the complainant and written arguments of both the parties.
7. It is apparent from the case record that the complainant is a bonafide consumer of the O.Ps which was admitted by the O.Ps in their counter version with affidavit. The allegations of the complainant that is issuance of the bill for 37 days in the month of August 2023 dated 14.09.2023 which was also admitted by the O.Ps. The O.Ps further admitted in the case through counter version that “due to strike of the union of Meter Reader Team of or Bhanjanagar accident in which one of the meter readers died by brutal attacks by one consumer”. And for such reason the meter recording was started lately and the complainant for bill for 37 days. The O.Ps are also admitted in their counter version that, “Re. 109(1) of the OERC (Distribution Conditions of supply) code, 2019 – the meter shall normally be read on fixed date ± 3 working days. And it is admitted by O.Ps that as per said provision there was delay of 4 days in the billing cycle for the month of August 2023. With counter version the O.Ps alleged in the maintainability petition the Commission has encroached the jurisdiction of a competent Forum constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003. It is misconception of the O.Ps. The District Consumer Commission Act is a quasi judicial body passing judicial orders in accordance to Section 100 of the C.P. Act, 2019, Section 173 to 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and more fully Reg. II of the OERC (GRF and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004. Hence the maintainability petition of the O.Ps hereby rejected with no cost. The constitution of India has empowered each and every citizen of India to file their complaint of his choice in any court of law which have jurisdiction and no authority/O.Ps can impose and bound any of its customer/person to approach only their Forum.
8. The Commission relied upon news reported in page-9 para-4 Court news, Vol-VIII issue No.3, July-September 2013 a quarterly news published by Supreme Court of India, New Delhi “4 On 1st July, 2013, in the case of U.P. Power Corporation ltd. & Ors versus Anis Ahmad (Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012) the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum (Constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer or any person against the Assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was considered. It was held that :- (i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity, Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, will prevail, but if so facto will not vest the consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “Service” as defined under Section 2(1) (o) or “complaint” as defined under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (ii) A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a consumer Forum. (iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of “Consumer” under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or Association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to “unfair trade practice” or a “restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider”, or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service’, or “hazardous service” or the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”. Hence the citation on which the O.Ps relied upon is very much distinguishable and not applicable in the present case whereas as discussed above in Anis (Supra), it is cleared that the Consumer Commission not encroaching the jurisdiction of the GRF at any point of time.
In view of the Anis (Supra), the present complainant is a consumer of O.Ps and suffering from deficiency in services as the O.Ps have provided bill service after completion of 7 days of one billing cycle of 30 days. The O.Ps also admitted the same. The prayer of the complainant is very clear and specific that, the O.Ps should rectify the bill and give bill on monthly basis. Issue of bill after 7 days or after ± 3 days of monthly billing cycle is definitely a deficiency in services. Issuing of bill through a meter reader is a service which comes under Section 2(42) C.P.Act, 2019 (erstwhile C.P.Act, 1986). And the O.Ps are also not given any advance notice regarding strike of meter reader to the complainant and no such corroborative document of advance notice of strike has been brought to the record by the O.Ps in the case. The document Annedxure-1 with the petition filed by the O.Ps is date back to 20.11.2023 and the agency “Supreme Power series” of Mumbai has admitted that, “the billing started late” and nowhere in the said letter was mentioned that, they have informed to the complainant in advance regarding strike of “Union of Meter Reading Team”.
In view of the above factual aspects of the complaint and relying upon the ratio broadly discussed in Anis (Supra) the Commission partly allowed the complaint on contest against all the O.Ps. The Sub Divisional Officer O.P no.2 is directed to rectify the bill No. 341140923000041 in accordance to the Reg. 150(i) of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of supply) Code, 2019. Further it is advised to all the O.Ps to remove the deficiencies in services in question by adopting the provisions laid down in Reg. 109(iv) of O.E.R.C. Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 in letter and spirit. It is further directed to all the O.Ps to disseminate information by display at ideal location and place about system of redressal of grievances under Reg. 200 of the Code, 2019 and complaint handling procedure of Distribution licensee (Approved by OERC) in the larger interest of the consumers. The entire order be carried out by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order by the opposite parties, the complainant is at liberty to take steps under Section 71 & 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
I Agree.
Pronounced on 22.10.2024.
