Orissa

Debagarh

CC/12/2019

Ranjan Kumar Sahoo, aged about 50 years, S/o-Govinda Chnadra Sahoo, Occupation-Law practice - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer, WESCO, Deogarh Electrical Division - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jun 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH

Complaint Case No- 12 /2019

 

Present- Sri  Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, and  Smt.  Arati Das, Member.

 

Ranjan Kumar Sahoo, aged about 50 years,

S/O-Govinda Chandra Sahoo,

Occupation-Law Practice, Mob-9438640919,

R/O- vill-Badabahal, P.O-Dantaribahal,

P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                          ….        Complainant

Vrs.

Executive Engineer,

WESCO, Deogarh Division,

At-Near Private Bus Stand Deogarh,

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                 …         Opp.Party.

 

For the Complainant-                    Nemo

For the O.P-                                     None.

 

                                    Date of Hearing  dtd. 19.06.2019,Date Of Judgment dtd. 24.06.2019

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President - Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is a consumer of electricity and regular payer of electric dues.  In case of delay in payment of electric bill the O.P whimsically disconnects the power supply to his premises and demands fine for reconnection. The O.P provides monthly electric bill inconsistently, not for whole month or for fraction of a month. O.P is irregular in recording meter reading which are not in regular interval and untimely in nature. The bills provided are invisible, improperly printed causing difficulties to consumers for detailed study of the bills diminishing the possibilities of any objection. As the gap between bill date and payment date is very short and consumers sometimes fails to make payment in time. The O.P served bill for Aug-Sept 2018 on actual basis for 182 units, arrear of Rs. 2.89 paisa but in Oct-Nov-2018, 400 units accessed provisionally as “house found locked” which was strongly objected by the Complainant stating this “wrong and illegal” but no response from the O.P was received and the complainant has paid the billed amount with an apprehension of disconnection. But when subsequently another bill for Rs.1081/-was served for 321 units for four months i.e from October -2018 to January 2019  again  the Complainant raised voice on the irregularities as he has already paid for Oct & Nov-2018  and request was made to adjust the amount  but in vain. The ongoing negligent, improper and malafide business practice of the O.P. forced the Complainant to fall in financial loss, mental agony and harassment.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.P has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on the records we inferred that as the Complainant is a domestic consumer of electricity and paying monthly bill regularly hence there is nothing dues against him. Therefore the Complainant fall within the definition of consumer of the O.P as provided in the Consumer Protection Act-1896. The O.P were not provided bill on actual basis in spite of regular payment. As per the instructions/guidelines provided by the WESCO, it is obligatory in the part of the O.P to furnish electric bills to the customers on monthly or bimonthly basis and as per the actual meter reading as shown by the electric meter. It is a common practice that the O.P have not been deputing the meter readers to take the reading recorded in the meter on regular basis and electricity bills are sent to the customers on the basis of average or minimum charges and when the meter reader visits the premises to record the reading then the entire units consumed are shown in one particular bill and resultantly the slab of tariff increases. Again despite of payment of bill for a specific period, the O.P served the same bill twice to the same consumer which made him aggrieved and proves the extent of negligence on the part of the O.P. This matter is well settled in the case of “Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited and another Vrs.  Ratan Prakash Jain” decided on 25^th April 2019 by “Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand”. Again it is seen from the comparative statements of bi-monthly bills supplied by the O.P, filed by the Complainant that the average monthly consumption of the Complainant is within the range of 100 to 120 unit per month .But the O.P have charges excess amount by supplying wrong bills which needs to be refunded. This matter has been well explained in the matter of “Haryana State Electricity Board v. Bhagwat Prasad” decided on 21 December 2001 by Hon’ble National Commission, Delhi.  In case of any billing disputes from the supplier should resolve the dispute within 2 months of loading the complaint and take action in accordance with regulation 92 of OERC distribution conditions of supply code. Regulation 92 directs that if the supplier finds the bill erroneous, a revised bill indicating revised due date shall be furnished to you. Excess amount paid by you shall be refunded by way of adjustment with 2% interest in the subsequent bill. But if the supplier ascertains the bill to be correct, this will be notified to you asking you to pay the balance, if any, with 2% interest from the due date. If the supplier fails to resolve dispute within 2 months, you need not pay the interest on the balance amount. But here no response was shown by the O.P, thus violates the rules prescribed by OERC and harassed the consumer. Hence the O.P has committed “Deficiency in Service” U/s-2(1)(d) of “Consumer Protection Act-1986”.

                                                                                           ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P is directed to provide correct, legible, properly printed electric bill on regular basis to the complainant every time within a specific date every month with no deviation. Further they are directed to recalculate the monthly bills from the month of Oct-Nov-2018 till the date of order and after settlement of arrear refund/adjust the amount already paid for the above months (Oct-Nov-2018) to avoid double payment. The O.P is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation towards mental agony and pain and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards the cost of litigation within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.          

            Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, 24^th day of June-2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                                                                

 

MEMBER.                                                                                        PRESIDENT.                        

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                         By me.

 

                                                PRESIDENT.