DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, BOLANGIR
Presents:-
1 Sri A.K.Purohit, President
2 Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated , Bolangir the 18th day of July 2018
C.C. No. 57 of 2016
Sri Birendra Kumar Mishra, Prop of hotel Classic, Bolangir
At:- Cinema Hall Road, Bolangir Town, Po/Ps/District- Bolangir
-Versue-
The Executive Engineer, WESCO, Electrical Division, Bolangir
At:- Palace Field, Bolangir, Po/Ps/District- Bolangir
Adv. For the Complainant :- Sri A.K.Mishra.
Adv. For O.P :- Sri B. Satpathy,
Date of filing of the Case:- 30.11.2016
Date of Order:- 18.07.2018
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1 The case of the complainant is that, he has taken the electric connection to his hotel supplied by the O.P. vide consumer No.911001030066 and is paying the bill as per consumption. For the said connection the complainant to clear up some arrear bill amount availed the one time settlement scheme of the O.P. and paid the settled amount on dated 26.11.2011. The complainant alleges that, although he had paid the settled amount as per the O.T.S. scheme, but again the O.P. demanded an arrear bill amounting to Rs.33529.48p which is an unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant has preferred this case for correction of his bill amount and for calculation of the amount as per consumption.
2. The O.P. has contested the case by filing his written version. Besides preliminary objection the O.P. in his written version has submitted that on verification the O.P. found that an arrear amount of Rs.33529.48p has not been paid by the complainant at the time of O.T.S. scheme which is not a rebate amount. Further the O.P. submitted that, the meter of the complainant is not in proper condition and hence it is not possible to install the AMR sim card. The O.P. denies all the allegation of the complainant and claims no deficiency in service on his part.
-2-
3. Heard both the parties. Perused the pleadings and documentary evidence available on record. In support of his case the complainant has filed Xerox copy of bills raised by the O.P. and payment receipt. On the other hand the O.P. produces the copy of the billing statement maintained by him.
4. Before going into the merits of the case the O.P. raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the case and submitted that, the electric supply to the hotel of the complainant which is a commercial establishment and hence the supply is for commercial purpose and the case is not maintainable. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has taken the electricity supplied by the O.P. to his hotel. There is no evidence available on record to show that out of the said supply of electricity the complainant is earning profit from his hotel. Therefore the supply of electricity is a service and the case is maintainable for the grievance of deficiency in service.
5. It is the case of the complainant that, after payment of the settled amount the O.P. demanded an arrear amount of Rs.33529.48ps. In Para 6 of the version the O.P. admitted that the complainant has availed the OTS scheme. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has paid the settled amount. The plea raised by the O.P. that there was an arrear amount which are to be paid by the complainant at the time of settlement, cannot be believed for the reason that the settlement is relating to the entire arrear amount and to clear up the same the scheme was announced by the O.P. with the approval of the OERC. All the arrear amount of the complainant was settled as one time settlement and hence it is believed that after payment of the settled amount no arrear amount is outstanding against the complainant. Therefore after payment of settled amount under the OTS scheme further demand of arrear amount by the O.P. cannot be said to be fair and the complainant is not liable to pay the same.
5. The further case of the complainant is that the bill raised by the O.P. is not as per consumption. It is seen from the billing statement produce by the O.P. that the meter of the complainant is in OK condition. In Para 10 of the version the O.P. has admitted that the meter of the complainant was tested and found to be OK. Therefore the O.P. is duty bound to raise the bill as per consumption and cannot force the complainant to change the meter when it is in OK condition. Non-raising of bill as per consumption by the O.P. amounts to deficiency in service on his part.
6. Under the foresaid discussion and material available on record it is concluded that the complainant is not liable to pay the arrear bill after one time settlement and the O.P. is duty bound to raise the bill as per consumption. Hence ordered:-
ORDER
The O.P. is directed not to raise any arrear bill amount till 26.11.2011 and further directed to revise the bill of the complainant from December 2011 to till date as per consumption. The O.P shall not disconnect the electricity connection till the bill is revised. There shall be no order as to cost.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open Forum to-day the 18th day of July’ 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
