SHRI   PITABAS  MOHANTY ,  I/C  PRESIDENT  -     

                The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

            The facts shortly as per complaint petition as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a domestic consumer under the O.Ps who is availing power supply for his domestic  purpose  . It is alleged by the petitioner that as per his actual consumption of electricity he has received the electricity bill for the month of July, August and September-2019  Rs.85/- ,Rs.150 and Rs. 137/- respectively  as well as has paid the same but in the month of October-2019 he has received the electricity  bill amounting to Rs.17,312.29 paisa which is a defective bill. Accordingly the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to revise the disputed electricity bill amounting to Rs.17,312.29 paisa in average basis as well as award Rs.50,000/-  for mental agony.

            After appearance / the O.Ps  have  filed the written version  denying the allegation of the petitioner . The main plea which has been taken by the O.Ps  in the written version is that on 17.10.2019 , the O.Ps  have  conducted meter verification and after verification it is observed that the meter status and service wire are OK. The electricity bill for the month of October-2019 has been assessed as per actual meter reading. The meter verification report was sent to the petitioner by Regd.post as the petitioner refused to sign in the verification report dt. 17.10.19 . Further it is stated by the O.Ps that as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission  reported in 2012(1) CPR-76-N.C  and section 56 of Electricity Act ,the dispute cannot be adjudicated by this commission in summery procedure and it is opened to the petitioner to approach the Electrical  Inspector to challenge the correctness of bill raised by the Ops on the meter reading . As such there is no deficiency in service or unfair Trade Practice for which the dispute is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            On the date of hearing  both side of the learned advocate  are present .  We heard the argument and perused the pleadings. After perusal of the record we are inclined to dispose of the present dispute as per our observation below -

            1. Admittedly the petitioner is a consumer under the O.Ps  bearing consumer No. 02582597 who is entitled to maintain the dispute in this commission .

            2. It is alleged by the petitioner that though he has received the electricity bill for the month of July, August and September-2019  Rs.85/- and Rs.150 and Rs.137/- respectively but in the month of October-2019 . The O.Ps  have  assessed the electricity bill against the petitioner amounting to Rs.17,312.29 paisa which is a erroneous / defective bill

            As against such allegation of the petitioner, the O.Ps  have  stated in the written version that as per inspection dt.17.10.2019 by the O.Ps the meter and service wire of the petitioner are OK  and as the petitioner refused to sign in the inspection report dt.17.10.2010  the said inspection report has been sent to petitioner by Regd. Post .As against such plea from the side of the O.Ps.

            a. The O.Ps have not filed the registered receipt in support of their stand that the inspection report has been sent to the petitioner by R.P .

            b. The O.Ps have failed to follow the subsequent proper procedure in case the petitioner refused to sign in the inspection report .

            c. The O.Ps have not conducted the verification inspection in presence of two local independent witness as per section 100(4) of the code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

            d. The O.Ps  have  not filed the copy of the meter reading register as per regulation -60 of OERC Distribution ( Condition of Supply) code-2004  in support of raising the electricity bill against the petitioner .

            e. The O.Ps also filed the ledger copy of the alleged consumer number wherein the monthly electricity unit consumption of the year of 2019 from January to October as 20,20,25,25,40,30,25,50,45,2996 units which established that the monthly actual unit consumed by the petitioner from 20 to 50 units except the month of October-2019 as 2996 unit.

            As regards jurisdiction of the Commission to decide the present dispute we are in the opinion that the citation / decision 2012(1) CPR-76- N.C as cited by O.P is distinguishable and not applicable to the present dispute on the ground the cited decision relates to a case where meter seal has been broken but in the present case the O.P himself admits that the meter and service wire of the petitioner are OK.

            As regards jurisdiction even if this commission is deciding the disputes in summary procedure still then the commission is empowered to decide the complicated dispute in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2003(1) CLT-127-SC vide para-12 and 13 ( Dr.J.J merchant and others vrs. Srinath Chaturvedi)

             In the sake of argument if the stand taken by the O.Ps  taken into consideration then  the O.Ps himself admit  that as per the MRT verification report dt.17/10/19 it is found that

“ there was no anomaly in the meter so also in the service wire and everything are OK”.

Hence it is presumed that as per O.Ps version there is no unauthorised use or unauthorised connecting load in the premises of the petitioner and the petitioner contract load / demand load  is 0.5K.W as per agreement . If the petitioner use whole time( 24 hour) in a day with full contract load the maximum units comes to   12 unit per day for which in the month of  October-2019   (12x31)=372 units or less but the O.P calculated much more than above calculation in the above month

            The above observation clearly go to establish that the O.Ps  have  committed patent  deficiency in service  for which we quashed the bill for month of  October-2019 amounting to Rs.17,312.29 paisa as well as direct the O.ps to revise  the electricity bill for the month of October-2019 on average basis taking six months meter reading i.e ( 3 months prior to October-2019 and 3 months after October-2019) within one month after receipt of this order ,failing which the O.Ps  shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- ( two thousand) as compensation.

                                                                                                         O R D E R

            The dispute is disposed of as per direction cited above. In case the order is not complied within the stipulated period the petitioner is at liberty to proceed as per law. No cost.

            This order is pronounced in the open Commission on this the 29th  day of  January ,2021. Under my hand and seal of the Commission. 

                                                                                                                                                                Sd/

                  Sd/-                                                                                                                     (Shri Pitabas Mohanty) 

(Mrs  Rajashree Agrawala)                                                                                                     President  I/C

    Lady Member.                                                                                                    Typed to my dictation & corrected by me 

                                                                                                                                                                Sd/- 

                                                                                                                                             (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)

                                                                                                                                                       President  I/C.