Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant is a consumer under the OP since 1981. The complainant alleged that due to breakdown of transformer the rice huller remained closed from 1998. The complainant alleged that even if the meter was running OK, the OP supplied the electric bill on load factor basis on each month from June,2003 to October,2003. Then the complainant alleged that complainant got 1st electric bill in July,2003 and then he has made complaint to OP-Official. The OP issued the bill for the month of 12/2003 showing meter was OK and showing reading as 31633. The complainant alleged that without rectifying the bill the OP issued arrear bill of Rs.21,175/- inspite of complainant’s demand to rectify the defect. The complainant approached several time to OP to revise the electric bill, but the OP did not listen to his word. Showing deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version denying the liability to pay compensation. According to him the complainant is not a consumer under the definition of the Act., the complaint petition is hit under the scope and principle of resjudicata. Moreover, according to Ops the electric line of complainant’s rice huller has been disconnected since long and the complainant was required to execute fresh agreement on 19.05.2004. The complainant, instead of rectifying the defect have prayed to revise the bill of Rs.22,160/- as on 11/1999. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“Hence, it is ordered that the complaint petition of the complainant is allowed on contest against the Ops with cost. The Ops are directed to install a meter in the premises of the petitioner and take average meter reading of three months and accordingly revise the bill of the petitioner from 6/03 to 7/04. The Ops are further directed to ask the petitioner to remain present in the office of the Ops alongwith money receipts issued by the Ops and verify the deposit made by the petitioner including additional security Rs.7,000/- and if the petitioner deposited excess amount with the Ops, then that will be adjusted towards future bills. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the petitioner towards the compensation for mental agony and litigation cost. This order shall be complied by the Ops within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum failed to appreciate the material on record because the bill sought for for revision has been already revised and there is further no cause of action arise. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in this case. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant was a consumer under the OP and he has got power supply. The observation of the learned District Forum in para-5 of the impugned order is stated below:-
“ We carefully gone through the documents filed by both the parties in the above noted case as well in C.D.Case No.20/04. The Ops filed one letter bearing NO.TED.2004/2153 dt.26.07.04 issued by Assistant General Manager (Elec.) to the petitioner wherein the Ops admitted that though there was a meter with last reading 22550 upto 11/99, at the time of reconnection of power supply in advertently the status of the meter was recorded as no meter for which load factor bill for the period from 6/2003 to 10/2003 has been served. It is further stated by the Ops on the said letter that basing on present meter reading submitted by J.E.(Elec.) Parjang the energy bill has been revised charging from load factor to unit advanced for payment of the dues. We also perused the revised bill issued by the Ops which reveals that I.R is 22550 units and the petitioner consumed 434 units in each month from 6/03 to 10/03 and shows 1298 units consumed in the month of 11/03 due to house luck and in the month of 12/03 the units consumed was 916 units and in total 4284 units consumed from 6/03 to 12/03, a sum of Rs.14,137.20 has been charged to be paid by the petitioner. Further the Ops charged Rs.10,819/- from the month of 1/04 to 6/04 without showing any meter reading and the total dues comes to Rs.24,954.20 out of which the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.12,800/- from dt.31.12.02 to 30.04.2004 and total balance to be paid by the petitioner is Rs.12,956.20. According to the Ops basing on the meter reading submitted by the J.E.(Elec.) :Parjang the energy bill has been revised charging from load factor to the unit advanced. We are quite unable to understood how the Ops charged 434 units in each months from 6/03 to 10/03 and charged 1298 units in the month of 11/03 due to house luck and 616 units in the month of 12/03. The Ops failed to convince us how they charged 1298 units consumed in the month of 11/03 due to house luck where they charged 434 units in each month from 6/03 to 10/03. Similarly also we are unable to understand how the Ops charged 616 units consumed in the month of 12/03, which amounts to deficiency in service caused by the Ops. So, it is necessary to direct the Ops to install a check meter in the premises of the petitioner for 3 months and after taking the average units consumed, revise the bill of the petitioner from 6/03 to 8/04. "
9. It appears that the bill of the complainant has already revised and there is no reason to consider for further payment because the payment has already been made. Since, the bill has already revised and some amount has to be deposited by the complainant, we found no error with the OP. Hence, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal stands allowed because the deficiency in service has been removed by the Ops by revision of the bill by the OP as available from the impugned order.
10. As such the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Statutory amount be refunded.
