SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)

            The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-12 of erstwhile C.P. Act, 1986 (here-in-after called as the “C.P. Act - 1986”), alleging “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the S.D.O.(Electrical), NESCO, Balia, and OP No.2 is the Junior Manager, Rupsa Electrical Section Office, NESCO. (All are now under TPNODL, Balasore). 

2.         The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is a domestic consumer under the Ops bearing Consumer No.BR-25762 with a contract load of 1 KW and accordingly, bill amount has been paid by her. But in the month of September, 2004, it is revealed that the meter was changed vide meter No.1706433C and the category was changed to commercial and contract load was 3 KW and the Ops demanded the complainant to pay Rs.43,465/- for consumption 696 units. Further, in the bill for the month of October, 2018, the amount has been shown as Rs.1,52,974/-. The complainant is a widow, runs office to office of the Ops for correction of her energy bills which was wrongly generated as commercial category and 3 KW contract load. Although the Ops gave assurance for the same, but did not rectify the amount in the bills, rather issued disconnection notice time and again and taking advantage of her innocence, the Ops have forcibly collected Rs.5,000/- on 20.9.2017, Rs.17,000/- on 31.3.2017, Rs.1,000/- on 23.10.2016, Rs.4,000/- on 28.3.2016 and Rs.7,000/- on 28.2.2015. The complainant used to pay the electricity dues regularly to the Ops as commercial consumer of contract load 3 KW and the arrear dues dragging since September, 2004 till date is illegal. Therefore, the Ops have played “unfair trade practice” or “restrictive trade practice” or “deficiency in service” towards the complainant which otherwise amounts to hazardous services by the Ops.

            The cause of action for filing of this case arose on 20.9.2017, when the Ops forcibly collected an amount of Rs.5,000/- and in the month of October, 2018, when the Ops illegally sent bill showing arrear amount of Rs.1,52,974/-. With the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complainant was constrained to file the present case with the reliefs, as sought for, in her complaint petition. Hence, this case.

            To substantiate her case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record –

1. Original energy bill for 7/94 to 8/94..
2. Original energy bill for 4/94 to 6/94.
3. Original energy bill for the month of January, 2001.
4. Original energy bill for the month of December, 2003.
5. Original energy bill for the month of August, 2004.
6. Original energy bill for the month of April, 2005.
7. Original energy bill for the month of June, 2009.
8. Original energy bill for the month of October, 2018 (defaced).
9. Original disconnection notice dated 29.2.2008.
10. Original disconnection notice dated 5.11.2016.
11. Original money receipt of Rs.5,000/- dated 20.9.2017.
12. Original money receipt of Rs.17,000/- dated 31.3.2017.
13. Original money receipt of Rs.1,000/- dated 25.10.2016.
14. Original money receipt of Rs.4,000/- dated 28.3.2016.
15. Original money receipt of Rs.7,000/- dated 28.2.2015.
16. Original money receipt of Rs.200/- dated 27.11.2020.
17.  Original money receipt of Rs.200/- dated 28.2.2021.
18. Original money receipt of Rs.200/- dated 29.1.2021.
19. Original money receipt of Rs.605/- dated 28.3.2022.
20. Original acknowledgement issued by Sarpanch, Kasipada GP dated 23.12.2018.

3.         In the present case, both the Ops have made their appearance and filed their joint written version. In the written version, they have challenged the maintainability of the case and the cause of action denying the averments made in the complaint petition. They have stated, inter alia, that this is a case U/s 126 of I.E. Act in disguise. The dispute relates to the penal bill basing on the spot verification report by the assessing Officer in July/August, 2004. The complainant is the owner of a small industry having a leaf-pressing unit and she was using the power under commercial category against domestic category and having defective meter. The provisional bill was levied upon the load factor basis and after giving opportunity, the penal amount was finalized. So, for the non-payment of huge amount along with arrear amount and running bill, the disconnection notices were issued. The complainant has paid part of the outstanding dues in different dates. It is further averred that considering the part payment and load factor revision on commercial category for the period from 2004 to 2008, as per account statement submitted by the O.Ps, the complainant has been exempted to the tune of Rs.1,03,082/- out of total amount of Rs.1,62,882.44 and now the bill amount of Rs.60,255.62 has been imposed upon the complainant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

            To substantiate their case, the OPs relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-

1. Photocopy of statement of bills of the petitioner from April, 2002 to September, 2018.

4.         In view of the above averments of the parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)         Whether the complainant is a consumer?

(ii)        Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?

(iii)       Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law?

(iv)       Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps to the complainant?

(v)        To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?

F   I   N   D   I   N   G   S

5.         That upon meticulous examination of the complaint petition, written version along with the documents presented by the parties in this case, admittedly it is found that the complainant is using electric energy in her premises bearing consumer A/c No. BR-25762. Thus, it is held that the complainant is a consumer. 

6.         Learned counsel for the complainant urged that the complainant is a domestic consumer under the Ops bearing Consumer No.BR-25762 with a contract load of 1 KW and accordingly, bill amount has been paid by her. In the month of September, 2004, the meter was changed vide meter No.1706433C and the category was changed to commercial and contract load was 3 KW and the Ops demanded the complainant to pay Rs.43,465/- for consumption 696 units. Further, in the bill for the month of October, 2018, the amount has been shown as Rs.1,52,974/-. The complainant is a widow, runs office to office of the Ops for correction of her energy bills which was wrongly generated as commercial category and 3 KW contract load. Even though the Ops gave assurance to correct the bill amount, but did not rectify the amount in the bills, rather issued disconnection notice time and again and taking advantage of her innocence, the Ops have forcibly collected Rs.5,000/- on 20.9.2017, Rs.17,000/- on 31.3.2017, Rs.1,000/- on 23.10.2016, Rs.4,000/- on 28.3.2016 and Rs.7,000/- on 28.2.2015. The complainant used to pay the electricity dues regularly to the Ops as commercial consumer of contract load 3 KW and the arrear dues dragging since September, 2004 till date is illegal.

7.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops submitted that this is a case U/s 126 of I.E. Act in disguise. The dispute relates to the penal bill basing on the spot verification report by the assessing Officer in July/August, 2004. The complainant is the owner of a small industry having a leaf-pressing unit and she was using the power under commercial category against domestic category and having defective meter. The provisional bill was levied upon the load factor basis and after giving opportunity, the penal amount was finalized. So, for the non-payment of huge amount along with arrear amount and running bill, the disconnection notices were issued. The complainant has paid part of the outstanding dues in different dates. It is further argued that considering the part payment and load factor revision on commercial category for the period from 2004 to 2008, the complainant has been exempted to the tune of Rs.1,03,082/- out of total amount of Rs.1,62,882.44 and now the bill amount of Rs.60,255.62 has been imposed upon the complainant.

8.         In the present case, not a single document has been produced from the side of the Ops to presume that spot verification was made in the premises of the complainant in the month of July/August, 2004 and the meter was found to be a defective one. No spot visit report or provisional assessment order or final assessment order said to have been filed to believe that the complainant has ever committed any overt acts in consuming huge units of electric energy, as stated by the Ops, when she is a domestic consumer. Only document filed on behalf of the Ops i.e. Annexure-A, billing statement of the complainant from April, 2002 to September, 2018 sows that in the month of June, 2004, new meter has been installed vide No.1706433 with contract load of 3 KW and accordingly, prepared bills enhancing the charges. In this connection, it is the stand of the complainant that in the bill for the month of September, 2004, it has been mentioned that meter was changed so also the category was also changed to commercial along with contract load 3 KW from 1 KW and the amount was demanded for Rs.43,465/- for consumption of 696 units. Simply mentioning the fact that meter, category of the consumer and contract load has been changed not supported with any related documents, it cannot be said that the complainant is a commercial consumer and consuming more than the contract load, that too the meter is a defective one. So, the amount calculated and shown in Annexure-A is totally false and fabricated. When the complainant is a domestic consumer with contract load of 1 KW and not a commercial consumer, mentioning the same otherwise in the papers in the hands of the Ops and demanding huge amount on the basis of wrong calculation, demanding huge amount from the complainant and issuance of disconnection notices is nothing but baseless and whimsical.

9.         Learned counsel for the Ops urged that considering the part payment and load factor revision on commercial category for the period from 2004 to 2008, the complainant has been exempted Rs.1,03,082/- out of total amount of Rs.1,62,882.44 and now the bill amount of Rs.60,255.62 has been imposed upon the complainant. The submission of the learned counsel for the Ops is not clear regarding the basis of exemption of the amount and fixation of the imposed amount. No document is filed on behalf of the Ops to satisfy this Commission, under what circumstances they exempted a huge amount. When it has already been held that demanding the bill amount is totally baseless, as discussed earlier, further imposition of Rs.60,255.62 paisa on the complainant is held to be based on wrong calculation. Therefore, the claim, as agitated in the written version to the effect that the bill amount of Rs.60,255.62 paisa has been imposed upon the complainant keeping in view the part payment and load factor revision on commercial category for the period from 2004 to 2008 exempting Rs.1,03,082/- from out of Rs.1,62,882.40 paisa is a fictitious one. Thus, the complainant is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount.                                                                                                                                                

10.        Further, it is seen that Ops have alleged that the complainant is the owner of a small industry having a leaf-pressing unit and she was using the power under commercial category against domestic category and having defective meter. In this connection, not a single document has been filed before this Commission to satisfy that the complainant is the owner of a small industry and consumed energy under commercial category. The Ops have failed to satisfy this Commission that on spot verification, it was detected that the complainant was running a small industry and for that consumed energy as like commercial category and basing upon the assessment order, meter has been changed from domestic category to commercial category with contract load from 1 KW to 3 KW. The Ops have come to this Commission in empty hands, without any valid documents. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is a case U/s 126 I.E. Act. 

11.        From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, therefore, it is held that the Ops have played “unfair trade practice” towards the complainant which otherwise amounts to hazardous services by the Ops and thus they are liable to be compensated the complainant.  

12.        The complainant in this case is a widow and a rustic village woman. From the document (vide Annexure-20) issued by the Sarpanch, Kasipada Gram Panchayat and produced on behalf of the complainant shows that the complainant owned a house under Indira Awas Yojana and a domestic electricity connection is supplied to her said house. The Ops, taking advantage of her innocence, have forcibly collected Rs.5,000/- on 20.9.2017, Rs.17,000/- on 31.3.2017, Rs.1,000/- on 23.10.2016, Rs.4,000/- on 28.3.2016 and Rs.7,000/- on 28.2.2015, Rs.200/- on 27.11.2020, Rs.200/- on 28.2.2021, Rs.200/- on 29.1.2021 and Rs.605/- on 28.3.2022. The aforesaid amounts has been collected from the complainant on the threat of issuing disconnection notices and that too on the basis of wrong calculation holding that the complainant is a commercial consumer, owned a small industry, consumed energy up to 3 KW and that too changed the meter when the old meter was not defective. The Ops have not filed a single document to show that they have ever treated the complainant as the domestic consumer till date. Without any valid document, exemption of Rs.1,03,082/- out of the total bill amount of Rs.1,62,882.40 paisa proves itself arbitrary in nature.

13.        Therefore, considering the fact that the Ops are guilty of playing “unfair trade practice” and taking into consideration the nature and character of the Ops so also the status of the complainant and with a view to come to an end of the lis, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Ops be directed to compensate the complainant exempting the total outstanding dues, by adjusting the amount so deposited by her vide Annexure-11 to 19 treating her as domestic consumer by rectifying the contract load from 3 KW to 1 KW, from the period 2004 till the date of order.

             Hence, it is ordered –

O   R   D   E   R

             The complaint petition filed by the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest against the Ops. The Ops are directed to rectify the contract load from 3 KW to 1 KW treating the complainant as domestic consumer and further to issue fresh electricity Bill accordingly.  

             Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 10^th day of October, 2023 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.