SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of providing inflated energy bill and threat of disconnection are the allegations arrayed against ops.
2. Complaint in brief reveals that complaint’s deceased father namely Sri Nabaghan Sahoo was a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No.-02171113 and was paying the monthly energy dues regularly as per actual consumption. It is stated that Ops served the monthly energy bill for month of February 2016 reflecting total arrear outstanding as Rs. 6458/- after adjusting an amount of Rs. 21,3891/-, accordingly complainant paid the amount in full on dt. 25/2/2016 and obtained money receipt No. 571802. On the next month i.e, on dt. 17/3/2016 Ops vide their monthly energy bill No. 17032016124435 demanded Rs. 42,937/- where the Complainant and his family members only consumed 47 units in the said month. Accordingly the complainant and his elder brother met the officials of Ops and put their above grievances, but all went invain rather the officials of Ops misbehaved and threatened to disconnection the power supply. Complainant finding no other alternative approached this Forum with prayer that a direction may be given to Ops not to disconnect the power supply and to supply the actual bill and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.
3. Being Noticed Ops appeared through their ld. Counsel and filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the complaint U/S 126,145,174 and 175 of I.E.Act-2003 and by citing the decision of Honbl’e Apex Court in case of Up Power Corporation and others vs Anis Ahmed reported in O.L.R. 2014(1) SC.68. Ops submitting the facts of the dispute averred that complainants deceased father Nabaghan Sahoo was a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No.-02171113. It is averred that the Op CESU, authorities on dt.29/12/2015 conducted the physical verification on Complainant’s premises and find that complaint is availing power supply by extra hooking from the nearest bar conductor to run entire load to manipulate the actual power consumption. It is also detected that the meter reading on dt. 20/12/2015 was 2032 units and the meter reading on dt. 29/12/2015 reflects the consumption as 2033. 9 units within 9 days the actual consumption is (01) unit. As at the time of physical verification the existing contact demand was 1.5 k.w. and the Assessing officer in excerise of power conferred U/S of I.E.Act-2003 passed provisional assessment to the tune of Rs. 21389.48 for unauthorized use of electricity. The copy of the PVR and provisional Assessment are filed into the dispute as Annexure A & B. It is further averred that as per the consumer billing statement on December-2015 was Rs. 27687.46, but on the month of January-2016 the assessment amount of RS.21389.40 was erroneously debited instead of credit for which the arrear shows in January is for Rs. 6458/- against the arrear of Rs.49,076.80, such error was rectified in the next month i.e, February’s monthly energy bill, so the Complainant cannot take advantage of such clerical errors. It is also averred in the written statement that under the provisions of I.E.Act-2003 if the consumer does not filed any show cause before the Ops within seven days of personal hearing the provisional assessment amount will be treated as final assessment. Written statement also reveals that under facts and circumstances and in case of suspect of theft of energy and decision of Honbl’e Apex Court the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the annexures and documents filed as lists. It is an admitted fact that Complainant’s deceased father namely Nabaghan Sahoo was a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer A/C No.-02171113 and at present the complaint and his family member are availing the power supply on the same consumer number. It is also admitted that a monthly energy bill for the month of February-2016 was served on the Complainant showing an amount of Rs.6,548/- as arrear outstanding dues. The Complaint is filed on allegations that basing on the monthly energy bill of February-2016 where the OPs shows the total arrear outstandings as Rs. 6458/- after an adjustment of amount of Rs. 21,389/-. As per the monthly bill of February-2016 complainant cleared all the dues by paying Rs.6548/- and obtained receipt No.-571802 issued by Ops. Complainant to support his stand filed Xerox copies of energy bills for the month of February-2016 and Xerox copy of monthly receipt issued by Ops showing payment and acceptance of Rs.6548/- on 25/02/2016 vide money receipt no.-571802. On the other hand Ops countering the allegations submit that a physical verification was conducted in the premises of the complainant on 29/12/2015 and it was detected that complainant was availing power supply by extra-hooking and U/S 126 of I.E.Act 2003 the Assessing Officer after provisional assessment imposed a fine of Rs. 21390/- which was erroneously debited instead of credit from the monthly energy bill of Jan-2016 from the previous arrear outstandings of Rs. 27,688/-. It is also stands of the Ops that when such inadvertent mistake was detected the ops rectified the energy bills calculating the total arrear outstandings of Rs. 49,077/- and rectified the energy bills in the next month of February. The defence pleas of Ops are supported by the documents Annexure A,B and the attested Xerox copy of consumer billing statement with an affidavit of Sri Jajati keshari Nayak, junior Manager, Enzen Global Solution Pvt. Ltd.(Op No.1).
Now it is to be decided by this Forum that whether the payment made by the complainant-consumer amounting of Rs. 6458/- on dt. 25/02/2015 basing in the monthly energy bill of complainant is full payment of arrear dues of as claimed by the Complainant? It is the pleadings of the Complainant that after an adjustment of Rs.21,389/-, Complainant paid the said dues to the Ops for up-dating his arrear dues. On the other hand the defence pleas are that due to wrong entry in the monthly energy bill of February-2016, the amount of Rs.6458/- is reflected as the Complainant’s arrear dues up to Feb-2016 was Rs.49,077/-(arrear dues up to january2016 +fine amount as per the provisional assessment). As per the Complaint the Ops were not serving any monthly energy bills prior to February-2016 which was in inefficiency of the Ops and the Complaint does not disclose How the Ops adjustment the arrear amount? Whether the same adjustment were on the request of the Complainant or not? And as per the Complaint, the Ops were not serving any monthly energy bills prior to February-2016 then How could the Complainant came to know his arrear outstanding? Or the Ops on their own accord adjusted the monthly energy in the month of February-2016 which is disputed. These aspects are not clarified properly in the Complaint petition. Further, consumer billing statement reveals that Complainant was paying certain amount in every month after July-2012 as monthly energy dues and the Complainant was having pending arrear dues since the year 2005. But not a single sentence is presented on the Complainant regarding pending of arrear dues. Ops defence pleas is rather more nearer to the truth as the disputed monthly energy bill of Feb-2016 is clerical mistake, where the imposition of fine of Rs. 21,390/- was erroneously debited instead of credit as the defence pleas are supported by Annexure A & B along with the affidavit of Op No.1. and a clerical/ typographical mistake cannot be treated as an adjustment as submitted by the Complainant.
As the Complaint has not raised the questions of physical verification and provisional assessment, which is part of the present dispute after filing of the written statement of the Ops and in the objection filed by Complainant reveals that he has no knowledge about conducting of physical verification and provisional assessment. We do not want to interfere in the said dispute of physical verification on dt.29/12/2015. It is the choice of the Complainant to redress the said grievance as per the provision law.
Complainant on his objection to the affidavit dt.16/01/2017 disclose that on dt/27/03/2014, the Op-authorities rectified the arrear outstandings an application of Complainant and revised the bills to the tune of Rs.7,000/-, accordingly, Complainant paid the amount in same date, i.e, dt.27/3/2014, the copy of the application any money receipts dt. 27/3/2014 are filed into the case. In this regard we are of the unanimous view that as the said facts pleadings are not reflected in the Complaint petition earlier, we do not take cognizance of the same.
Having observations reflected above the Complaint is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 10th Day of March, 2017.
