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 was a consumer under the OP having connected load of 1 KW. The OP was issuing energy bills since 1986. But on 0.12.2002 the OP installed a meter and enhanced the connected load from 1 KW to 3.5 KW. Again the new meter was installed on 03.06.2006. Inspite of request of the complainant the Op never revised the energy bill after reducing 3.5 KW to 1 KW. So, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version stating that the bill was prepared @ 1.5 KW on load factor basis till October,2001 but subsequently it was prepared basing on 3.5 KW till 09.10.2002. According to them the meter was installed on 10.10.2002 and bills were issued on actual consumption basis. However, till February,2006 no revision took place. It is averred that the power supply was disconnected from March,2005 and energy bills were revised till July,2004 with an average meter advance of 90 units per month. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ That, the complaint petition is allowed on contest without cost. The OP is directed to reduce the connected load from 3.5 KW to 1.5 KW till availability of report of the electical inspector. The OP is to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only to the complainant and n the meantime if disconnection is continuing they are to give the power supply for the use of the consumer.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by them with proper perspectives. According to them the bill has been already revised after the request of the complainant is made. It was Rs.66,969.60 till March 2006 and it was revised but complainant has failed to pay same. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in this case before passing the impugned order. So, 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 a meter was installed in December,2002 From 2002 to 2006 the meter ready was taken up. It is also not in dispute that the meter was checked by the Op and revision has already been made. When the revision has already been made, the question of revision of bill does not arise. It is not brought out in record, when 3.5 KW was revised to 1.5 KW as enjoyed by the complainant from 2002. So, non-consideration of the request of the complainant is also deficiency in service on the part of the OP. However, a revision of bill has already done, the question of payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- is not required. But at the same time the OP is found to obey the impugned order for reduction of the connected load from 3.5 KW to 1 KW subject to observance of the procedure for reduction of the connected load. The entire exercise would be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 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.
