DATE OF FILING: 04.02.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 02.02.2016
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Member:
Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the Opposite Parties (for short O.Ps) the complainant has filed this consumer dispute to redress his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is a bona fide user as well as consumer of O.Ps under BED-2 Division of Berhampur Supply Sub-Division No:E.S.O. No.1 bearing Consumer No.8-D-52/2 and new account No.342101180608 which stands recorded in the name of one Balla Bassanna the father of the complainant since deceased. On 27.12.2012 in the morning hours the O.P. No.1 made forcefully entry into the premises of the complainant when he was absent and without disclosing their identity inspected the premises of the complainant at the behests of O.P. No.2 to 5 and forced to one B. Madhuri to put her signature in Annexure -1 and advised to the representative of the complainant to replace the meter immediately as it is running slow. Thereafter, on the same day in the evening hours the O.P.No.2 issued a notice directing the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.8,600/- with along with replacement of the meter at the cost of the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant received the monthly consumption bill from the O.Ps on 25.1.2013 for Rs.844/- only and after receipt of the said bill, the complainant paid the said bill on 31.01.2013 which also did not reflect any outstanding dues therein to be paid by this complainant. The complainant also alleged that probably with a view to collect a huge amount for the benefits of their masters, the O.P.No.2 issued demand notice asking the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.8,600/- towards arrear of electricity dues. These actions of the O.Ps are tantamount to unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice and deficiency in service. By taking advantage of the innocence of the complainant, the O.P.No.2 issued a notice placed as Annexure-4 again demanding the complainant to deposit aforesaid amount and threatened to disconnect power supply to his premises so that the complainant will be put to public ridicule and harassment. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant filed this dispute and prayed to direct the O.Ps to replace the meter with new tested meter with their own cost, to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of inspection and litigation cost in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice being served the O.Ps put their appearance through learned counsel Sri M.K. Mohapatra and filed written version/arguments. It is stated that the complainant of the complainant are all not true and correct and the allegations those are not specifically admitted by the O.Ps deems to be denied by them and the complainant is put to strict proof of his such allegations. The complainant of this case is not a consumer of this electricity supply company of the O.Ps vide consumer No. S-D-52/2 and new account No.342101180608 as the consumer number stands in the name of one Balla Basanna under domestic category. On 27.12.2012, vigilance team of SOUTHCO entered into the premises of the complainant with prior intimation and inspected the meter and service wire in the premises in presence of the representative of the consumer. During inspection it is detected that the consumer has tampered the meter and the meter was also found damaged and running slow by (-) 32%. A copy of said inspection report has been served upon to B.Madhuri on the spot, who is the representative of the recorded consumer and he has received the same without any objection. The assessing officer of the O.Ps being empowered U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has assessed the loss caused due to such unauthorized use of electricity to the tune of Rs.8,600/- as per his best judgment vide assessment order dated 27.12.2012.The assessment order was communicated to the consumer with a request to file objection if any against the assessment order within 7 days of receipt thereof and also to avail an opportunity of hearing on his said objection. Along with the assessment order, detail calculation sheet also served upon the consumer. In spite of receipt of the assessment order, the consumer has not preferred to file any objection against the said assessment order and also did not remain present before the assessing officer for availing an opportunity of hearing. Hence, the assessing officer has confirmed the assessed amount, which is binding on the consumer and the same has been communicated to the consumer for payment. The consumer has unauthorized drawing electricity by tampering the meter and the seals attached to the meter. The consumer has mishandled and damaged the meter to avoid recording actual units consumed by him by tampering the meter seal. So, the allegation that the SOUTHCO authorities has illegally imposed penal bill upon the applicant is not true and correct and is a created story adopted by the applicant to escape liability of payment of the assessed amount duly assessed strictly following the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, Rules, Regulations and Tariff orders framed and published there under. No cause of action ever arose to file this complaint before this Forum and the alleged cause of actions are created stories adopted for the purpose of the above case. Further, submitted that as the Electricity Act, 2003 itself provides appellate procedure U/S 127, wherein it is statutorily requires deposit of half of the assessed amount to challenge the Final Assessment order. Hence, the intention of legislature is very clear that the unauthorized users of electricity have to indemnify the losses caused due to such unauthorized use considering the cost of power generation and also shortage of power. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case of the complainant at this stages as the complainant has directly invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum without exhausting the statutory remedies available U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case in view of special provisions modified under Section 127, 145, 173 and 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003. This Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any order when the demand is made by the assessing officer, who discharges his duties and functions under the Electricity Act and rules. It is settled principle of law that if a consumer wants to challenge the final assessment order passed under Section 126 of the Act; the consumer shall have to file an Appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Act. No court, Forum and authority have got jurisdiction to grant injunction/mandatory injunction against the licensee as the jurisdiction is ousted under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The above principle of law is also decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 where the Hon’ble Apex court hold that “a complaint against assessment made by the assessing officer U/S 126 or against the offences committed under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”. The Assessing Officer is an authority to initiate proceeding U/S 126 of the Act by applying his best of judgment and if any Forum, court and authority pass any order and direction against the order of the assessing officer, in eye of law it will be treated as an encroachment on the rights conferred under the Act and Regulation i.e. one court or authority cannot inject any court or authority while discharging its statutory functions. The Assessment Officer is empowered to discharge his duties granted under the Act and if any order of this Forum is passed against order of the Assessing Officer, it shall not be bound in view of the Section-145 of Electricity Act, 2003. The complainant has not filed the present complaint as per the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Electricity Act and the consumer is withholding the legitimate dues of the O.Ps and also enjoying s the electricity unauthorized, for which the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as such the above proceeding is not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed.
4. On the date of hearing we heard arguments from the learned advocate for the complainant as well as from the learned counsel for the O.Ps and gone through the complain petition, written version/written arguments filed by both parties respectively. We have also perused the vital documents on record filed by both parties during the course of hearing of this dispute.
It is not in dispute that the present consumer is a complainant bearing Consumer No.S-D-52/2 and new Account No.342101180608 as is evident from the monthly electricity bill submitted by the O.Ps since the consumer connection is in the name of Late Balla Basanna and the present complainant is the son of late Balla Basanna who has also declared before this Forum through an affidavit that Balla Hema Chandra Rao is son of late Balla Basanna. Thus, he can be a beneficiary consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and this point time and again proved through different orders passed by Hon’ble National Commission. So, there is no doubt or dispute that the present consumer is a complainant under the said Act and the objections raised by the learned counsel for the O.Ps that the present complainant is not a consumer is not sustainable under law.
5. During the course of hearing of the dispute, the learned advocate for the complainant argued that on 27.121.2012 in the morning the O.P. No.1 forcefully entered into the premises of the complainant in his absence at the behest of O.P. No.2 to 5 and assessed the meter of the complainant and forced to one B. Madhuri to put her signature in Annexure-1 with an advice to replace the meter and on the same day the O.P.No.2 issued a notice directing the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.8,600/-. He also contended that thereafter the complainant received a monthly electricity bill from the O.Ps on 25.01.2013 for Rs.844/- which does not reflect any arrear dues therein and it was paid by the complainant on 31.01.2013. He further argued that the O.Ps with a view to collect huge amount for the benefits of their masters, O.P.No.2 issued the demand notice to the complainant for depositing Rs.8,600/- towards arrear of electricity dues which amounts to unfair trade practice/restrictive trade practice and deficiency in service. He also cited a decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi decided thorough (Revision Petition No.3850 of 2008 decided on 25.3.2014 in support of his arguments, hence prayed to pass orders to give relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint.
6. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the O.Ps contended that that on 27.12.2012, the vigilance team of SOUTHCO entered into the premises of the complainant with prior intimation and inspected the meter and service wire in the presence of the representative of the consumer. During the inspection it is dictated that the consumer has tempered the meter and the meter was found damaged and running slow by (-) 32%. The copy of said inspection report was served upon B.Madhuri on the spot who is the representative of the recorded consumer and received without any objection. The Assessing Officer of the O.Ps being empowered U/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 assessed the loss caused due to such unauthorized use of electricity to the tune of Rs.8,600/- as per his best judgment vide assessment order dated 27.12.2012. The assessment order was communicated to the consumer with a request to file objections if any against the assessment order within 7 days to avail an opportunity for hearing on the calculation sheet. In spite of receipt of the assessment order the consumer did not prefer to file objections and did not remain present before the Assessment Officer to avail an opportunity for hearing. It is also argued that the complainant has mishandled the seals attached to the meter and damaged same to avoid recording actual units consumed by him by tempering the meter seal hence the allegation of illegal imposition of penal bill by the O.Ps is not correct. He further contended that as the Electricity Act, 2003 itself provides appellate procedure U/s 127 and it is statutorily required to deposit half of the assessed amount to challenge the final assessment order and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case in view of Section 127, 145, 173 and 174 and there is statutory remedies available U/s 126 of the said Act. No Court or Forum and authority have got jurisdiction to grant injection / mandatory injection against the license as the jurisdiction is ousted under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In support of his arguments he also cited a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 where the Hon’ble apex court hold that “a complaint against assessment made by the Assessing Officer U/s126 or against the offences committed under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”. In view of the aforesaid arguments the learned counsel for the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the complainant with cost in the interest of justice.
7. We have given due thought and consideration to the arguments addressed by both learned counsel for the complainant as well as for O.Ps and also perused the entire materials available on the record. On careful examination of the documents on record, we found that it is a fact not in dispute that the O.P.No.1 inspected the premises of the complainant on 27.12.2012 and checked/verified the meter bearing Consumer No.8-D-52/2 and New Account No.342101180608 stands in the name of Bala Basanna who is father of the present complainant. Out of the pleadings made above it appears that the dispute started when the O.P. No.1 made detail inspection of meter and load census of the complainant on 27.12.2012. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that the assessment made by the O.Ps was not proper and not as per the electricity distribution regulations. The points to be adjudicated by this Forum - Whether the alleged meter inspection and load census of the complainant was done by the O.P. No.1 as per the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004? Whether the alleged meter was defective or was running slow? Whether the meter was sent to an accredited laboratory for testing to ascertain correctness of the meter? And whether the details of meter inspection and load census dated 27.12.2012 of O.Ps is valid or void? The replies to the aforesaid questions have been reflected in the discussion made below.
8. At the outset of our observation, we would like to refer the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code 2004, Chapter-V, regulations 54 to 63 dealing with power supply meter. Regulations-59(2) of the said Code mentions about testing of meters and the relevant regulation has been extracted below for reference:
59(2) Due notice to the consumer shall be served by the licensee to be present during the test. The licensee shall have the option to carry out and conclude the test in absence of the consumer after expiry of the notice period. The billing for the period the meter remains defective or unavailable from the date of reporting to the date of its installation after repair or replacement shall be revised in accordance with Regulations 97 and 98.
Further, regarding testing and verification of accuracy of meter by the Licensee, the following Regulations of Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code 2004 is to be followed. The relevant regulations of the said Code are extracted hereunder for reference:
Regulation 52. During the checking and verification of the electrical installation in the premises of the consumer, including the supply line and meter, a complete inventory shall be prepared of all connected equipment, apparatus, machinery, forming integral part of the installation in the premises of the consumer. The consumer or his representative shall be requested to sign the inventory or inspection report. If the consumer or his representative refuses to sign the inventory or inspection report an endorsement to that effect shall be made by the engineer on the body of the report. A copy of the said report shall be affixed at the consumer’s premises. In such cases, the consumer shall be deemed to have been served with a copy of the report. Within one month of service of the report as aforesaid, the consumer shall be entitled to complain against the correctness of the inventory or the result of the inspection to the designated authority of the licensee, who shall enquire into the matter of the complaint and decide on the correctness or otherwise of the report.
Similarly, Regulation 59(5) states that in the event of any difference or dispute on the accuracy of any meter, the same shall be decided on an application by either party to the Electrical Inspector.
From simple reading of the above Regulations, it is clear that due notice to the consumer shall be served by the licensee to be present during the test. The licensee shall have the option to carry out and conclude the test in absence of the consumer after expiry of the notice period. During the checking and verification of the meter, a complete inventory shall be prepared of all connected equipment, apparatus, machinery, forming integral part of the installation in the premises of the consumer. It is also prescribed in the said Regulation that the consumer or his/her representative shall be requested to sign the inventory or inspection report. If the consumer or his representative refuses to sign the inventory or inspection report, an endorsement to that effect shall be made by the engineer on the body of the report. It is also mentioned that within one month of service of the report as aforesaid, the consumer shall be entitled to complain against the correctness of the inventory or the result of the inspection to the designated authority of the licensee, who shall make enquire into the matter of the complaint and to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the report.
9. In the present case, as per the documents placed on record, it appears that the O.P. No.1 all of sudden visited the premises of the complainant and instantly checked/ verified his meter without serving due notice to the complainant. But as per prescribed regulation 59(2) above, due notice to the consumer shall be served by the licensee to be present during the test. It is necessary to observe here that the act of O.Ps for inspection/ verification of the alleged meter of the complainant is total disregard and violation of the requirement of Regulations discussed above. In our view, this is an arbitrary and illegal act of the O.Ps deserved to be viewed as a serious lapse on their part. Nothing has been placed in the record to take a view otherwise. Further, it has also come to our notice that the O.P. No.1 verified the meter and reported the slow running of same to the O.P.No.2 and the O.P.No.2 made the provisional assessment for the period Dec’2010 to Nov’2012 for an additional amount of Rs.8,600/- is also not as per law. It is also a matter of fact that the said Meter Inspection Report was not prepared in presence of the complainant and it was also not signed by himself and it was signed by one B. Madhavi. It is also not clear on what capacity she was signed the report of the O.P.No.1 since she is not examined by this Forum during the course of hearing to test the veracity of her relation with the complainant. In this regard, we would like to point out that meter inspection in the premises of the complainant was not done as per Regulations of O.E.R.C.D(Conditions of Supply) Code 2004, hence, the said assessment report is void in the eyes of law.
Further, the Regulation 59(6) of the said supply Code mentions the following:
On receipt of complaints of meters running slow, running fast, creeping beyond limits, not working or defective, a tested standard meter can be fixed in series with the existing meter by the licensee. The connecting terminals/ meter boxes of both the existing and tested standard meter shall be sealed jointly by Licensee’s representative and the consumer. Meter reading of both the meters shall be taken jointly after some hours of operation. The accuracy of existing meter can be known by comparing readings of both the meters for the same period. If the existing is found to be defective, it can be removed to laboratory for repair and the tested meter already available in the consumer’s premises can be fixed in place of the existing meter.
62. 1) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to satisfy himself regarding the accuracy of the meter before it is installed and may test them for this purpose.
2) The licensee shall also conduct periodical inspection/testing of the meters at site as per following schedule or earlier: The licensee may instead of testing the meter at site can remove the meter and replace the same by a tested meter duly tested in an accredited test laboratory.
a) Single phase meters : at least once every five years,
b) LT three phase meters : at least once every three years,
c) HT/EHT meters including MDI : at least once a year
3) Records of these test results shall be maintained in accordance with Rule 57 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 or in accordance with regulation framed under 73 of the Act.
From the above regulations, it is appears that the meter was not defective previously and it may not running slow, since neither the licensee nor the complainant made any complain about the inaccuracy/slow meter reading earlier to this incident. According to Regulation 62(2) stated above, the licensee shall conduct periodical inspection/ testing of the meters at site and the licensee may instead of testing the meter at site can remove the meter and replace the same by attested meter duly tested in an accredited test laboratory. In the instant case the licensee before the inspection date i.e. on 27.12.2012 never registered any complain about slow running of meter rather issued electricity bills as per actual consumption. Even the last electricity bill amounting to Rs.844/- placed as Annexure-I on the case record was issued by the O.Ps on December 2012 to the complainant and was raised on the basis of actual meter reading which was also paid by the complainant on 31.01.2013. The status of meter of the said bill of the complainant has been shown as “R” which does not mean it is defective. However, on the date of inspection i.e. on 27.12.2012 the O.P. No.1 has stated in his inspection report that the meter was running slow by (-) 32 %, but the O.P. No.1 has not disclosed how he assessed to ascertain that the meter was running slow by (-) 32% without laboratory test. He has not mentioned the device used to make the said assessment of the meter. There is nothing placed on the record to believe that the alleged meter was running slow or defective. The argument of the learned counsel for the O.Ps was not supported by any convincing documentary evidence. We do not accept the argument of learned counsel for O.Ps as correct representation of the matter. In our view, without standard test conducted by an accredited test laboratory, no one is authorized to say that the meter is slow or defective. This is in contravention of the regulations referred above and the O.Ps also failed to lead any convincing documentary evidence to prove this point. When the meter was not tested by any accredited laboratory and when there is no test report to support that, a person, however, he is expert in this regard can’t assume that the meter was running slow or defective. The O.P. No.1 could have sent the same for laboratory test and after receipt of the report he could have prepared the provisional assessment report on the basis of slow running of the meter.
10. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that O.P. No.1 without following mandatory requirement under O.E.R.C. Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code 2004 inspected/verified the meter of the complainant in his absence and also prepared the Meter Inspection Report and made it signed by someone namely B. Madhavi whose relation with the complainant is also not known. In this regard we would like to point out that the process followed by the O.P. No.1 to inspect/ verify the meter is not proper and not as per law, since it was not done according to relevant Regulations of the O.E.R.C. Distribution Code 2004 as referred above. The procedure followed by O.P. No.1 to inspect/verify the meter and the Meter Inspect Report dated 27.12.2012 suffers from irregularity and legal infirmity and not valid under law hence void. It is also observed that the O.P. No.1 not followed any standard procedure to ascertain meter running slow by (-) 32% since it was not tested by any accredited testing laboratory. Similarly, the assessment made by the O.P. No.2 based on wrong inspection report of O.P.No.1 is also not proper and it is in contravention of prescribed Regulations. There is nothing placed on record to substantiate that the meter was sent to an accredited laboratory for testing. We would also like to say that no one should enjoy electricity by violating the relevant provisions of law and those who are involved with theft of electricity should be punished heavily accordingly. Theft of electricity is an offence under Electricity Act 2003 and it is a loss of government revenue. So in case of proved theft of power no one should be spared. But in the instant case, the O.P. No.1 after preparation of its Meter Inspection Report referred the matter to O.P.No.2 and the O.P. No.2 on the basis of Meter Inspection Report prepared the provisional assessment bill amounting to Rs.8,600/- for the period Dec’ 2010 to Nov’ 2012 and issued against the complainant for payment by wrongly attracting Sections like 126, 127 135, 140 of Electricity Act 2003 and threatened to disconnect the power supply. As a result the complaint during pendency of this dispute also prayed for an interim order under Section 13(3B) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was granted him on 6.3.2013 on partial payment of Rs.1500/-. This is clearly an act of unfair trade practice on part of the O.Ps, since the process of assessment of meter of the complainant being running slow by (-) 32% is not valid. No standard procedure was followed for meter verification and testing while ascertaining the same, hence the Meter Inspection Report prepared by the O.P. No.1 in absence of complainant or his authorized agent is also not valid as per law and the provisional assessment made by O.P. No.2 on that basis as discussed above is also legally not tenable.
11. During the course of submissions and pleading of the case, the learned counsel for the O.Ps also contended that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any order when the demand is made by the assessing officer who discharged his duties and functions under Electricity Act and rules. It is a settled principle law that if a consumer wants to challenge same passed under Section 126 of the Act should have to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Act. No court, Forum and authority have got jurisdiction to grant injunction against the licensee as the jurisdiction is ousted under Section 145 of the Electricity Act 2003. To substantiate his arguments he also drew our attention towards the citation relied on by him. He cited the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5466/2012 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “a complaint against assessment made by the assessing officer U/s 126 or against the offences committed U/s 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum”.
12. We are unable to go through the authority cited above since no copy of the said judgment is placed on the case record to examine the applicability of the judgment to the present case. However, in our view the present case is not a case of offence U/s 135 to 140 and the assessment made by the assessing officer U/s 126 of the Act is also not valid in view of the discussion held above. There is no proof of unauthorized use or theft of electricity as contemplated by the O.P. No.1 and 2 in this case and there is no materials placed in the case record to hold that the meter is running slow by (-) 32%. The present complainant is a domestic consumer and as per the consumer status as mentioned in the last electricity bill, the meter is not defective. As contended by the O.Ps it is a case of meter being running slow by (-) 32% and on that basis subsequently assessment was made by O.P. No.2 citing loss of electricity units amounting to Rs.8,600/- which is not valid since the meter was not referred to any accredited laboratory for testing to prove the fact. It was merely a wrong observation made and reported by the O.P. No.1 and the O.Ps in this case never contended unauthorized use of electricity by means of bypass or hooking or making meter slow by using artificial devices rather argued the meter was running slow by (-) 32% without any report from accredited laboratory. The person who made the assessment is not a competent person to say that the meter was running slow without referring it to an accredited laboratory for standard test. So, the authority cited by the O.Ps in this case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also a fact that nothing has been placed in the case record to convince us or to prove that the meter was sent to an accredited test laboratory for testing and in absence of that it is hard to believe that the alleged meter was running slow or defective. Thus, the detail Inspection Report dated 27.12.2012 of O.P.No.1 is not valid and provisional assessment made on that basis by O.P.No.2 and communicated to the complainant subsequently is also not tenable. Hence, the case is maintainable in this Forum since it is not a proved case of unauthorized use or theft of electricity under Section 126 or Sections 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003. Similarly, we would also like to say that the citation filed by the advocate for complainant in case of Shri Avinash, S/o Prabhune Vs. Executive Engineer & Ors decided on 25.3.2014 by Hon’ble National Commission vide RP No.3850 of 2008 is also not applicable to this case in the facts and circumstance of the present case hence we are not inclined to accept the same.
13. In the light of discussions held and observations made above and in view of the facts and circumstance described above, it is held that the charge of theft of electricity against the complainant does not stand proved. In our considered view the unauthorized use of electricity as alleged against the complainant by the O.Ps is baseless and without any substance. The inspection/verification of meter of complainant by the O.Ps is not valid since it was done by disregarding and violating requirement of O.E.R.C. Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004.
In view of the discussions held above, the case of the complainant is allowed against the O.Ps, since it is a dispute relating to unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider as held above.
14. In the result, we allow case of the complainant against the O.Ps since the allegation of meter running slow by (-) 32% against the beneficiary complainant is not proved. The Meter Inspection Report dated 27.12.20013 and Provisional Assessment made thereof for the period Dec’ 2010 to Nov’ 2012 for an amount of Rs.8600/- of the O.Ps is quashed hereby as it is not tenable under law. However, to meet the ends of justice, the O.Ps are also directed to replace the meter of the beneficiary consumer within two months from receipt of this order as per rules and regulations made under Electricity Act, 2003 to avoid future disputes and the beneficiary consumer is also directed to cooperate with the O.Ps in this regard. The consumer dispute is disposed of accordingly. However, in the fact and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
15. The order is pronounced on this 2nd day of February 2016. The office is directed to issue copy of this order to the parties free of cost as per rule.
