SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency-in-service against the Opposite Parties.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant is an ailing old man suffering from cancer. He is a domestic consumer under the Ops bearing old A/c No.3231/9000317 having 2.00 KW contract load since 27.2.2017. It is stated by the complainant that he has been paying the energy dues regularly till the month of July, 2023 and obtained receipts. It is the specific case of the complainant that he was issued with a bill dated 5.8.2023 for 973 units for 30 days demanding Rs.5,825/- illegally. As he has been suffering from serious ailments, attending the Court of law time and again for the above callousness attitude of the Ops put him into serious tension.
The cause of action arose for filing of this case on 5.8.2023, when the Ops sent the disputed bill for the month of August, 2023. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant has relied on the following documents which are placed in the case record.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 6.1.23 & its payment receipt.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 5.2.23 & its payment receipt.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 4.3.23 and its payment receipt.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 7.4.23 & its payment receipt.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 6.5.23 & its payment receipt.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 5.6.23 & its payment receipt.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 6.7.23 & its payment receipt.
- Photocopy of Electric Bill dated 5.8.2023.
3. In the present case, Ops made their appearance and filed their joint version denying the averments made in the complaint. They have also challenged as to the maintainability of the case. In their version, they have stated, inter alia, that the bills from the month of July, 2022 to July, 2023 have been drawn on the basis of actual consumption. On 26.10.2023, the meter was tested in presence of the complainant and found it was in proper order. In the month of July, 2023, the bill has been drawn for 973 units and it is based on the actual consumption in the meter. When the meter was running in proper order and reading has been taken for each period, there is no irregularities made in the bill and thus, there is no deficiency in service. In the above facts and circumstances, it is prayed to dismiss the case with cost. To substantiate their case, Ops have filed photocopy of the revision energy bill from February, 2017 to July, 2023 and photocopy of meter check report, which are marked as Annexure-A & B respectively.
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. On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties as well as the documents placed on their behalf, the main crux of the case is that the complainant agitated his claim with regard to the demand of excess amount of Rs.5,825/- by the Ops in their Bill dated 5.8.2023 vide Annexure-8. From the Bills submitted by the complainant vide Annexure-1 to 7, it is found that the complainant had regularly paid monthly energy charges. On the other hand, the Ops claimed that when the meter was in proper order and the complainant has not agitated any complaint regarding any defect in the meter, how can it be believed that the complainant has not consumed the energy up to 973 units in the month of July, 2023. Further, the Ops have tested the meter of the complainant in his presence on 26.10.2023 and found it was OK. On perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the complainant has prayed to direct the OPs to install a separate sealed meter, if found defective and the disputed bill amount be stayed till disposal of this case and to direct the Ops to issue correct bill. In the above premises, the complainant has not stated a single word in his complaint that his meter was/is a defective one for which the disputed bill has been issued. On the other hand, this Commission has no jurisdiction to direct the Ops for rectification of the bills. Regarding rectification of bills, the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.1704 of 2020, have been pleased to observe that - the Grievance Redressal Forum as per Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the appropriate authority to approach for the disputes related to meter and billing. So, the complainant is advised to approach the GRF as per Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for consideration and in the event of presentation of any such application, learned GRF shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law on being heard from the complainant.
With the above observations, this Commission is of the considered view that though the complainant is a consumer and he has a cause of action to file the present case this commission has no jurisdiction to direct the Ops for rectification of bills. Consequently, the case is not maintainable.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 1st day of October, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
