MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT…             The complaint in brief is that, on July 2013 the complainant was served with a negative bill for Rs.27506/- showing consumption of 157 units. She approached the OP.s and OP.s assured her that since the bill is negative she need not worry. The bill for July’2014 was Rs.17007/- (negative) for 229 units of consumption. On Aug’2014, it was 16112/- (negative) for 209 units, and on Jan’2015 it was Rs.20738/- for 261 units. That on 23.2.15 she asked OP.s to revise the bill, but OP.s instead asked her to pay the total bill amount or they would disconnect the supply. Thus aggrieved and sustained of injury she has filed this complaint to direct the OP.s to revise the bill, allow the bills to be paid in installments inter alia to compensate her Rs.50,000/- along with cost of litigation. The complainant has also filed a petition u/s 13(3)(b) praying for a direction to OP.s not to disconnect the electric supply, which was allowed in the file of this forum as MA 2/2015 dt.10.3.15.

2.         The OP.s on call appeared on dt.8.5.15 and filed their counter, averring that the complainant availed the power supply to her consumer No.D-10-262 (Now No.7121025005) on dt.24.7.1998 with a connected load of 1 Kw. That till July-Aug’2010, she has paid only 19 times against 50 Nos of bi-monthly bills. She is not consuming minimum units but excess of connected load amounting to around 3 Kw, using fridge, TV etc along with one ½ HP motor, the verification thereof make by OP.s, is signed by complainant.

3.         The contention of the complainant is that the OP.s are issuing wrong bills which should have been verified after her letters to the OP.s. She has also requested for a new meter instead of the old one. Which the OP.s did not respond to, further she claimed that, from Jan’2011 to Dec’2012 the house against which the connection is allotted, was shut closed, and there was no consumption of electricity at all.

4.         The complainant contends that, a negative bill was issued against her electrical consumption in the month of Aug’2013, and immediately she approached the OP.s up to July’14 the bills continued as thus amounting to Rs.(-) 17,007/-, but suddenly on August’14, the bill upsurge to Rs.16112/- in positive trend.

5.         The complainant has provided us only copies of electric bills, most of them are ineligible. Moreover the complainant could not provide us any evidence if any payment in excess of the billed amount or in any other kind if ever has been made to OP.s, for which the probability of a negative bill could have been drawn.

6.         The contention of OP is that, during 4/12, a bill for 8554 units for 7 months charging an amount of Rs.35,247.71, apart from arrears was wrongly generated and issued to complainant against her electrical consumer number as above, to which complainant represented her objection to OP which was duly received and on verification communicated to the higher authorities with recommendations to slot down the excess bill by Rs.36,479/- which was received by higher ups in Nov’2012, accordingly the bill was slashed down by the amount. But in the meanwhile, the bill generating IT center at Berhampur, in April’12 itself had, sue motu already rectified the bill, which was communicated totally to present OP.s. Hence, the adjustments being made doubled, resulting a bill of Rs.30,191/- in negative in Nov’12. However, observing the negative billing, on enquiry the defect was rectified, in Aug’14, which resulted in a net due of Rs.16,112/- and thereafter the bill was raised as thus on the basis of actual consumption. He further contended that, the house was under lock only for Nov’12 to April’13, for six months and the bills are generated on actual reading of the meter.

7.         The OP has submitted Lr.No.241 dt.31.5.12 of Jr.Manager, Electrical Nabarangpur, suggesting the rectification of electrical bill. The detailed proposal for rectification was made by OP.s to S.E., Jeypore on dt.2.6.12 and final approval of such rectification vide lr.no.536 dt.9.11.12 of SE to the OP.s.

8.         We found the evidences and submissions of the OP.s to be steady and cogent and nothing to disbelieve. The contention of the complainant is rather asymmetric, to the point that, the door was locked in 2013-14, yet she has received bills all through the year 2014. She raised no objection. There is no evidence supplied us, if since the erroneous bill dtd.29.5.12, including the arrears of Rs.5135/- was paid by complainant, and if there was any suspension to the consumption of electricity against the consumer holding, obviously the bill tend to rise. And when acting on objection of complainant, the OP.s has acted promptly, we could not observe any deficiency in providing their service to complainant.

9.         As thus, the complaint being devoid of any merit, dismissed accordingly.

            No costs.

            Pronounced in the open forum on 23rd day of June' 2015.

    Sd/-                           Sd/-                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                MEMBER                     PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                             NABARANGPUR.

Date of Preparation: 

Date of dispatch      :  

Date of received by

the A/A for Ops / Complainant  :

Initial of the dispatcher.