Counsel for:
The Complainant:-Self
The Opposite Parties :- N.R.Mishra ,Advocate.
ORDER
Shri A.K.Patra,President:
This Complaint is filed against the Ops alleging negligence & deficiency in service for their erroneous bill of t6he month of November 2020 served to the complainant demanding payment of bill amount of Rs 50,027/-
The Complainant prayed for an order directing the O.Ps to rectify the arrear bill and said sudden jump in the meter in the month of November 2020 and to take monthly reading of the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant and to provide bill every month .
Complainant is remaining absent on the date fixed for hearing. However, in view of Section 38(3)(c) of C.P.Act,2019 case record taken up today to decide the complaint on merit on being heard the ops present.
Perused the material available on record. Complainant has raised negligence & deficiency of service on the part of Ops for serving of the alleged erroneous electric bill in the month of November 2020 fof an amount of Rs 50,027 though the previous bills was in between Rs.2,000/ to 2,200/-
On being notice, the Ops appeared through their learned counsel Mr. N.R, Mishra but no written version is filed, so also no evidence on affidavit as prescribed in C.P.Act 2019 is adduced to rebut the claim of the complainant though taking part in the hearing of this case .
No evidence on affidavit as prescribed in C.P.Act 2019 is adduced by the complainant..Here the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidenceto substantiate his claim.
As per Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record ; as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
Law is well settled that, complainant is to prove deficiency in service as alleged against the Ops but here the complainant failed to prove any negligence & deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.
Based on above facts & circumstances and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that this complaint sans merits. Hence , dismissed against the OPs on contest.However considering the limited prayer of the complainant the ops are directed to revise the bill pending against the complainant to the satisfaction of the consumer/complainant and further directed to take monthly reading of the meter installed in the premises of the complainant and to provide bill for consumption to the complainant regularly every month .
Dictated and corrected by me.
President
I agree.
Member
Pronounced in open Commission today on this 29th March 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.
Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Member. President
