SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-12 of C.P.A.-1986, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where Ops were the Electrical authorities under NESCO (at present TPNODL) in different designations.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant is a domestic consumer under the Ops bearing consumer No.48239. He used to pay the electric dues regularly as per actual consumption. The complainant used to live jointly with his other family members. After the death of his father, they wanted to live separate mess and property. Before that, they went to clear up the outstanding arrear bills due against consumer No.48239 and they came to know that a sum of Rs.35,000/- was due against the said account and they deposited the said amount in the office of the Ops. Thereafter, the brothers of the complainant applied for new domestic connection to their respective premises which was applied and new power supply was provided to them. Accordingly, the brothers including the complainant used to pay their respective electric charges. It is the case of the complainant that he is the consumer with the earlier consumer number. He used to pay electric charges regularly before OP No.4 and obtained receipts. But the complainant received a bill from the Ops showing that an arrear amount of Rs.10,.200/- is outstanding against him. The complainant that on receipt of the said bill, he approached the Ops about said arrear bill amount several times and requested to correct the bill, but they paid a deaf ear to it.
At the same time, the complainant has requested the Ops for correction of his another consumer No.101048 where the Ops have given such a bill in the month of March, 2015 with an arrear amount of Rs.15,340/-. In both the cases, the complainant has paid the electric charges given in the Bills. After several approaches, when the Ops did not listen to it and did not take any step for correction of the energy bill of the A/c No.48239 & 101048 stand in his name, the complainant made written complaint before the Ops, but all those became futile. As against the consumer No.48239, in the month of October, 2014 bill amount was Rs.701/-, in the month of November, 2014 bill amount was Rs.454/-, in the month of December, 2014 bill amount was 10,604/- and in the month of January, 2015 bill amount was Rs.10,595/-. Similarly, as against the consumer No.101048, in the month of February, 2015 bill amount was Rs.3,766/-, in the month of March, 2015 bill amount was 3,825/- and in the month of April, 2015 bill amount was Rs.21,998/-. The aforesaid bill amounts for the above months in both the consumer accounts are totally false and fabricated. The Ops have whimsically and intentionally with a view to harass the complainant used to demand more money by issuing false and irregular energy bills. It is further stated that the Ops have threatened to disconnect the power supply to his premises. For such inaction on the part of the Ops and threatening, the complainant sustained mental agony and harassment. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present case with the reliefs, as sought for in his complaint petition. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-
- Photocopy of application of the complainant made to Ops & its receipts with ADs.
- Photocopy of electric Bills for the month 2/15, 3/15 & 4/15.
- Photocopy of receipts showing payment of bill amount.
- Photocopy of application of the complainant dt.10.3.15 sent to Ops.
- Photocopy of electric Bill for the month of 10/14, 11/14, 12/14 & 1/15.
- Photocopy of receipts showing payment of bill amount.
- Photocopy of application of the complainant dt.18.12.14 sent to Ops.
- Photocopy of registration receipts with A.Ds.
3. In the present case, the Ops have appeared and filed their joint written version challenging the maintainability of the case and cause of action for filing the case. They have stated, inter alia, that the complainant is availing power supply by taking six numbers of service connections wherein consumer No.48239 is a domestic one having contract demand of 2 KW whereas consumer No.101048 is a commercial one having contract demand of 0.5 KW. The complainant is a defaulter consumer since the date of taking power supply. An amount of Rs.10,362.03 was outstanding against consumer No.48239 up to May, 2013 and wrongly an amount of Rs.10,200/- was deducted from the bill for May, 2013 without any payment by the complainant which was subsequently traced out and the complainant was intimated to produce the document as against such payment, if any, but as he failed to prove any document, said amount of Rs.10,200/- has been charged against him in the bill for the month of November, 2014. Similarly, an amount of Rs.16,297.77 was outstanding against consumer No.48239 up to May, 2014 and wrongly an amount of Rs.9,653/- was deducted from the bill for May, 2014 and an amount of Rs.5,652/- was deducted from the bill for July, 2014, in total Rs.15,345/- without any payment by the complainant which was subsequently traced out and the complainant was intimated to produce the document as against such payment, if any, but as he failed to prove any document, said amount of Rs.15,345/- has been charged against him in the bill for the month of March, 2015. It was nothing but clerical mistakes, but the complainant wanted to take advantage of it.
It is further stated that the meter in respect of Consumer No.101048 was defective since February, 2012 to October, 2013 and the load factor bills were served for an amount of Rs.1203.25 and after replacement of new meter in the month of November, 2013, it was seen that the average consumption was much more higher than the load factor and billed units. After revision of the bills for the defective period, a sum of Rs.67,748/- was served against the complainant. Hence, the Ops have not committed any deficiency in service against the complainant and thus, the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In order to substantiate their case, the Ops have relied upon the following documents which are placed in the case record –
- Photocopy of statement of bill in respect of Consumer No.48239.
- Photocopy of statement of bill in respect of Consumer No.101048.
4. In view of the above averments of 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. First of all it is to be determined as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not. From the averments made in the pleadings of both the parties and document produced on behalf of the complainant vide Annexure- 1 to 8, it is clear that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops and the Ops have not challenged the fact that the complainant is not a consumer under them. Therefore, the complainant is covered under the definition of a customer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. During course of hearing, it is argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant and his brothers wanted to take separate power supply to their respective premises for which they cleared up the outstanding dues in two months i.e. Rs.20,000/- in the month of March, 2013 and Rs.15,000/- in the month of April, 2013, in total Rs.35,000/- pending against Consumer No.48239 standing in the name of their father. The aforesaid consumer number i.e. 48239 has been allotted to the complainant. But surprisingly, the complainant received energy bill in the month of December, 2014 amounting to Rs.10,189.16 in respect of consumer No.48239 vide Annexure-5 and a sum of Rs.15,340/- in respect of consumer No.101048 vide Annexure-2. Thus, the complainant filed written complaints before the Ops vide Annexure-1 & 7. But the Ops remained silent, rather, they threatened to disconnect the power supply to his premises.
7. On the other hand, during course of hearing, learned counsel for Ops submitted that the arrear outstanding dues against the complainant in respect of consumer No.101048 was Rs.16,297.77 up to April, 2014 for non-payment of monthly dues since March, 2012, but inadvertently due to clerical mistakes an amount of Rs.9,693/- in the month of May, 2014 & Rs.5,652/- in the month of June, 2014 was shown to have been deducted from the outstanding account of the complainant. The complainant has not deposited the aforesaid amount at any time. By the afflux of time, when the aforesaid mistakes came out to the knowledge of the Ops, they informed the complainant to attend their office with payment receipts, if any, or to supply the Xerox copy of the same for taking further action. But as the complainant did not appear, the aforesaid amount of Rs.15,345/- has been again reflected in the bill for the month of March, 2015.
It is further argued that in respect of consumer No.48239, up to April, 2013 an arrear amount of Rs.10,346.25 was outstanding, but wrongly Rs.10,200/- was deducted from the outstanding arrear amount without any payment by the complainant which was subsequently traced out. They informed the complainant to provide the payment receipts in respect of the said deposit, but the complainant did not turn up for which said amount of Rs.10,200/- has been again reflected in the bill for the month of May, 2014. Lastly, it is submitted that these type of clerical mistakes are happening rarely in the numerous day to day transactions in the office of the Ops and also rectified in the official process, but the complainant cannot take benefit of it even without paying the legitimate dues.
8. The main crux of the present litigation is that the complainant has paid the outstanding dues of Rs.10,200/- & Rs.15,340/- and obtained receipts thereof in respect of consumer No.48239 & 101048 respectively, but the Ops have illegally claimed the said amount again. In this regard, on perusal of the energy bills for the month of February, 2015, March, 2015 & April, 2015 vide Annexure-2 and payment receipts for the month of above months vide Annexure-3 in respect of consumer No.101048, it is found that the complainant had paid the energy dues for the aforesaid months which are also correctly reflected in the statement of Bill vide Annexure-B. Similarly, on perusal of the energy bills for the month of October, 2014, November, 2014, December, 2014 & January, 2015 vide Annexure-5 and payment receipts for the month of above months vide Annexure-6 in respect of consumer No.48239, it is found that the complainant had paid the energy dues for the aforesaid months which are also correctly reflected in the statement of Bill vide Annexure-A. From the above, it is clear that the complainant used to pay the energy dues every month in accordance with the amount shown in the energy bills for each month.
9. In respect of the disputed amount of both the consumer numbers, it is the claim of the Ops that the arrear against the account No.48239 up to April, 2013 was Rs.10,346.25, but wrongly an amount of Rs.10,200/- was deducted from the arrear without making any payment by the complainant which was subsequently traced out by the Audit. The complainant was also intimated to show the payment receipts, if any, with him for necessary rectification, but the complainant did not turn up. Therefore, said amount of Rs.10,200/- has been again charged in the bill for the month of May, 2014. Further, the Ops have claimed that the arrear against the account No.101048 up to April, 2015 was Rs.16,297.77, but wrongly an amount of Rs.15,345/- was deducted from the arrear without making any payment by the complainant which was also subsequently traced out by the Audit and the complainant was intimated to produce the payment receipts, if any, with him for necessary action and as he failed to produce any document, said amount of Rs.15,345/- has been again charged in the bill for the month of March, 2015. On perusal of Annexure-A, it is found that a sum of Rs.10,200/- was deducted from the account No.48239 in the month of June, 2013 and the said amount has again credited in the account in the month of November, 2014. Similarly, in Annexure-B, it is found that a sum of Rs.9,693/- was deducted in the month of May, 2014 and a sum of Rs.5,652/- was deducted in the month of July, 2014, in total Rs.15,345/-, from the account No.101048 and the said amount has again credited in the account in the month of March, 2015.
10. On the other hand, the complainant stated that when he came to know about the above over outstanding dues in his both the accounts, he approached the Ops for correction of the defective bills vide Annexure-1 & 7 which were received by the Ops, as disclosed vide Annexure-1 & 8. The Ops have stated that they have intimated the complainant about the fact, but he did not produce any document to the effect that he had deposited the aforesaid disputed amount at any point of time. In this regard, the Ops have not produced any document to show that they have ever intimated the complainant regarding production of any payment receipts for correction of the energy bills. That apart, the Ops have also failed to produce any document to show that in which month the Audit party traced out the above mistake or error. The Ops have also not produced any document to arrive at a definite conclusion as to whether this type of mistake in respect of the accounts of the complainant was only traced or in any other accounts were traced out. Moreover, it is not possible on the part of a rustic villager like the complainant to preserve the payment receipts for year together for production in case of any dispute will arrive in future.
11. Further, Annexure-A & B, both are computer generated statements and not manual statements. The Ops have blatantly denied that the complainant has not paid the above disputed amounts and inadvertently due to clerical error the same has been shown to have been deducted from the accounts of the complainant. In this context, a clerical error is an unintentional mistake or negligence made by an office worker during tasks like copying, writing, or documenting information. Clerical errors include typographical errors, writing errors and compensating errors. These errors are not planned and occur due to oversight or lack of understanding. For the sake of argument, it is presumed that this is a clerical error and the office worker has manipulated it by mistake, but the Ops have not produced a scrap of paper to show that who made the above clerical error and what follow up action was taken against him. From the above, it is apparent that the complainant has paid the amount in question before the Ops and thereafter the statement of Bill vide Annexure-A & B were prepared accordingly. Thus, it can safely be held that the deduction of the aforesaid disputed amounts from both the accounts of the complainant is not a clerical error, rather, it has been prepared correctly without any intention and claiming the aforesaid amounts once again after a lapse of one year is otherwise proved that it is an intentional act and a fraud has been played by the Ops in the consumer accounts of the complainant. Fraud, on the other hand, is an intentional act carried out to benefit certain individuals or groups while causing detrimental effects to others. It involves deception and is done with the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage and fraud is planned and executed deliberately. Moreover, integrity is a set of core values and attributes that guide the Ops to be honest, trustworthy, dependable and use good judgment in their work. Integrity means always choosing to do what is right and being accountable for their actions. There are several ways they can use their actions and behavior to show integrity. Thus, the Ops have failed to prove their trustworthiness, accountability and transparency in their actions. Therefore, claiming the disputed amount by omitting and manipulating the same in the energy bill of the complainant is amounts to fraud. By such fraudulent acts of the Ops, the complainant has no doubt suffered mental agony and harassment. Furthermore, the Ops have claimed that the complainant has been availing power supply by taking six numbers separate service connections and he is a defaulter consumer in payment of energy charges dues against all the six numbers of accounts. In the present case, it has been clearly made out that the complainant is a consumer in two service connections i.e. consumer account No.48239 & 101048. But the Ops have failed to say or produce any document to prove that the complainant is availing six service connections and stand in his name. From the above, it is held that the demand of Rs.10,200/- and Rs.15,345/- in respect of Consumer Accounts No.48239 & 101048 respectively from the complainant by the Ops is exaggerated one and thereby the complainant is not liable to pay the said amounts to the Ops.
12. From the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Ops have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant has cause of action to file the complaint and the case is maintainable. Hence, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs, as sought for in his complaint petition.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps No.1, 2 & 4 and on exparte against O.P No.3. The O.Ps are hereby directed not to demand the arrear bill of Rs.10,200/- and Rs.15,345/- in respect of Consumer Account No.48239 & 101048 respectively stand in the name of the complainant and to supply the regular bill rectifying the amount in respect of the above accounts accordingly. No costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 26th day of February, 2024 under my signature & seal of the commission.
