SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of imposition of penal amount on unilateral enhancement of contract load on Complainant by Op-electricity authorities are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint in brief reveals that, Complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer A/C No. 000001146391 with contract load of 1 K.W. But the Ops without any physical verification enhanced the contract demand from 1Kw to 2.5 KW, which according to complainant is illegal, arbitrary and complaint is availing power supply within contract demand of 1K.W. Complainant approached the officials of Ops many a times to correct enhanced contract demand, but Ops paid a deafear to the grievance of the Complainant, for which the Complaint before the Forum, with prayer that a direction may be issued to Ops to conduct a fresh physical verification and reduce the load factor from 2.5 K.W. to 1 K.W. also prayed for refund of the amount for the billing period which are prepared on 2.5 K.W. basis. It is further prayed that Rs. 12,000/- may be awarded as compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation.
3. Being Noticed Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. P.K.Samal and Associates filed written statement and supplementary written statement, where the maintainability of the Complaint is challenged in a formal nature. It is averred on the written statement that Complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No. 01146391 and conduct of physical verification, it is found that the electrical apparatus installed in the Complainant’s premises verified and calculated upto 2.5 K.W. instead agreed contract demand of 1.5 K.W. Accordingly, the assessing Officer U/S 126 of I.E.Act, 2003 passed the provisional assessment order directing the Complainant to pay sum of Rs. 4,098/- for violating the agreement for use of electricity. An amount of Rs. 8819/- is pending on the Complainant as an arrear outstanding up to July-2017. It is also averred that the Ops have acted under Regulation of O.E.R.C. Rules and the Complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. Heard the Complainant and case of the Ops on merit gone through the documents filed by the parties. Complainant in support of his case filed Xerox copies of money receipts, monthly energy bills and other documents related to his family informatics. Ops filed copy of consumer billing statement.
The admitted facts of the case are that Complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No. 01146391 and it is also admitted that the energy bills are prepared enhancing the contract demand on 2.5 K.W. It is the case of the Complainant that without any physical verification, Ops enhanced the contract demand from 1K.W. to 2.5 K.W., which according to Complainant is illegal, arbitrary and unilateral action of the Ops. Ops resisted the claim of the Complainant on the grounds that on physical verification of the Complainant’s premises, it is detected that Complainant is using electrical apparatus, which exceeds the contract demand from 1K.W. to 2.5 K.W. and as per the provisional assessment order passed by the assessing officer U/S 126 of I.E.Act,2003 an amount of Rs. 4,098/- imposed as illegal installation of apparatus of 2.5 K.W.
Now, it is to be decided by this Forum that such enhanced of contract of 2.5 K.W. is in accordance with law or not? When the said physical verification is challenged by the Complainant in his Complaint. In the present proceeding, Ops except the consumer billing statement don’t file any document in support of physical verification, provisional assessment order and its communication to the Complainant-consumer or any Notice is produced by the ops into the dispute. The onus lies with the Ops to prove the allegations of the physical verification of unauthorized use of contract demand by the Complainant to substantiate their plea, when the same is challenged by the Complainant-consumer. That apart the written statement is completely silent regarding status of the agreement executed between complainant-Op authorities on detection and enhancement of contract demand and the Ops are further do not disclose, how the enhanced contract load of 2.5 K.W. was revised to 1K.W. from February-2016. In the circumstances this Forum feels that the enhancement of load factor of Complainant upto 2.5 K.W., which according to Ops is an offence U/S-126 of I.E.Act, 2003 cannot be sustainable before eye of law in absence of any cogent evidence required to be produced by the Op-electricity authority to believe their version and equally the counter allegation of U/S126 of I.E.Act-2003 regarding maintainability of the Complainant is not applicable to the present proceeding and averments raised by the Ops do not prohibit this Forum to adjudicate the dispute and same is well within the definition of ‘deficiency in service’, as per C.P.Act, 1986. Accordingly, we are of the unanimous view that the non-existence of any physical verification and imposition of penal amount of Rs. 4098/- and preparation monthly energy bills on 2.5 K.W. calculating from 11/2016 to June-2016 is illegal and same to be revised after conducting a fresh physical verification of Complainant’s premises.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that, Ops will conduct a fresh physical verification of Complainant’s premises and served a fresh revised energy bills to the Complainant basing on the upto-date physical verification on contract-load and as per our aforesaid observation. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, failing which action will be initiated against the Ops as per the provisions of C.P.Act, 1986.
Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in part without cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 18th day of October,2017.
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
