DATE OF FILING- 15.04.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL-11.06.2014
O R D E R
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Member
1. The complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against Opposite Parties (for short O.Ps).
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that he is a bona-fide consumer of O.Ps under Berhampur Electrical Division-1 of Berhampur Supply Sub-Division, Bijipur bearing Consumer No.1-E-56/227, new account No.341402310042 and belongs to Below Poverty Line (BPL) category. As per his written complaint, the O.Ps issued a monthly electricity bill to the complainant on 22.06.2012 for the Month of May 2012. The meter reading for the previous month recorded as 6363 for the Month of April, whereas the meter reading for the Month of May was recorded as 6767 and units counted as 344. After receipt of the said bill the complainant lodged a written complaint on 30.6.2012 before O.P.No.1 that ‘the meter reading for the bill period April 2012 was 6363 as on 30.6.2012 the meter recorded the readings displayed as 6430’ but the monthly electricity bill for the May 2012 bill period printed as 6707’ and requested O.P.No.1 to revise the said bill. It is also stated that on the same day the O.P. No.1 directed the Line Man of Ankuli to submit the meter details and accordingly Sri Bagati Apanna, Line Man, Ankuli submitted the meter details on 01.07.2012 in writing to O.P.No.1 that ‘the meter recorded reading as on 01.07.2012 was 6433’. The complainant also alleged that even after receipt of the meter details from the Line Man of Ankuli, the O.P. did not choose to revise the bill. Due to inaction of the O.Ps, the complainant again filed another written complaint on 04.08.2012 before O.P.No.1 and this time also did not reap any result hence issued an Advocate’s notice on 10.10.2012 which was also in vain. It is further alleged that the O.P. No.1 to 3 are adopting unfair and restrictive trade practice to collect huge amount from the complainant by taking advantage of his innocence and so they did not choose to revise the bill in dispute. On account of the above deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps the complainant is suffering from mental agony and harassed financially and physically. Therefore, the complainant has prayed before this Forum to direct the O.Ps to replace the meter with new tested meter with their own cost and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards agonies suffered due to negligence of O.P.No.1 to 3 and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. It is also prayed by the complainant to direct the O.Ps to remove deficiency in service and to discontinue the unfair trade practice and to pay punitive damages in the fact and circumstance as it deems fit.
3. On notice issued against the O.Ps appeared before this Forum through their learned counsel Sri Fakir Mohan Pattnaik and filed their written version on 19.09.2013. In the written version it is stated that the complainant has filed the above complaint with false and frivolous allegations. The O.Ps denies all those allegations as vague and concocted. The complaint shall put to strict of the allegations those are not specifically admitted herein. It is stated that the allegation made in para-4 is not a fact and as on 30.06.2012, the meter recorded the readings displayed as 6430. But it is a fact that his meter was displaying reading for the Month of April 2012 as 6363 units and for the Month of May 2012 as 6707 units. The difference units i.e.344 was his consumption for the Month of May 2012 as per meter readings. His meter is also OK and in perfect running condition and displays correct readings as per his actual consumption. After receipt of his complaint on dated 30.06.2012, the O.P.No.1 convinced him that his meter is not defective in any manner. It is also countered that the allegation of recording of meter details by Bagati Apana on 01.07.2012 is not true and not to the knowledge of the O.Ps. So, his bills since not defective, needs no revision and in view of the above, the allegations made in para-7 is not tenable and provisions of Electricity Act or OERC Regulations are never violated. It is also stated that the complaint dated 04.08.2012 and advocate’s notice, the same were not considered as his allegations are not tenable. The O.P. No.1 never made any dereliction of his duty and complainant was never issued with any provisional bill, excepting when the meter reader is unable to record his meter reading due to house lock. It is a fact that for the month of June 2012, a provisional bill has been issued and 344 units as average have been charged, considering the previous month’s consumption. But in the Month of July 2012, the same has been adjusted after taking the actual reading as 6710 units. It is also mentioned that in most of the occasions when the meter reader visits to his door to record meter reading, the house of consumer found under lock. So only when he unable to record the meter reading, provisional bills were issued and which were regularized in subsequent months considering his actual readings of consumption. As the bills of the complainant are not defective in any manner, the O.Ps are unable to revise his bills under his baseless allegations. The complainant is not a regular payer of electricity bills and he always keeps bills due for months together. There is no deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps and the O.Ps are no way liable to pay compensation or cost to the complainant as claimed. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Forum may pleased be dismissed the above complaint with cost in the best interest of justice.
4. On the date of final hearing we heard the rival arguments of all parties to the dispute at a length and gone through the complain petition, written arguments and also verified the documents filed by complainant as well as O.Ps.
It is not in dispute that the present complainant is a bonafied consumer under the O.Ps bearing his consumer No.1-E-56/227 and new account No.341402310042. During the time of hearing and while going through the case record, it is also found that the present complainant belongs to BPL category vide his Municipality BPL Sl. No.08 and Card No. A539044. Out of the bills placed in the case record, it reveals that the present consumer comes under domestic category having 1.80 KW of load. During the course of hearing of the consumer dispute, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the authorized meter reader of the O.Ps issued a wrong bill on 22.06.2012 for the Month of May 2012 having 344 units of consumption. He also contended that the said bill placed as Annexure -2 in the case record discloses that the units recorded as 6707, but the meter actually and mechanically recorded the units as 6407. It is also contended that the lineman of the complainant’s area inspected the meter on 01.07.2012 and was found the meter units were 6433 on that day and the said report of the lineman has been placed in the case record as Annexure-5. The complainant informed the matter to the O.P.No.1 on two occasions i.e. on 04.08.2012 and 10.10.2012 respectively to revise/rectify the bill amount, but he did not take any action. It is also argued that the O.Ps inspected the premises of the complainant on 20.08.2012 and found that the meter is OK. It is also argued that as admitted by O.P. No.1 in his written version it also corroborated the fact that the meter was not defective. Since the O.Ps not issued the correct bill as per actual consumption due to wrong meter reading, so it is not a fact that the complainant is a defaulter in payment of monthly electricity bills. Due to issue of wrong bill to the complainant, he could not able to deposit the monthly consumption bill and also sustained financial loss towards rebate. However, to show his bonafideness as a consumer, he had approached the concerned Junior Engineer through a letter on dated 4.8.2012 to revise/rectify the said bill which was acknowledged and placed in the case record as Annexure-6 for kind perusal of the Forum. The O.Ps not followed Regulation-60 or 86 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 and issued erroneous bills to the complainant till date to collect huge amount which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the O.Ps are liable to pay the interest @1% per month for not resolving the disputes arose on 30.6.2012 in the stipulated time as per Regulation-91 of OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004. In support of his arguments, he also relied on a citation passed by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court reported in CLT 82 (1996) 273.
In reply to the above contentions, the learned counsel for the O.Ps vehemently argued that the meter of the complainant was displaying reading for the Month of April 2012 as 6363 units and for the Month of May 2012 as 6707. The difference units i.e. 344 were his consumption for the Month of May 2012 as per meter readings. The meter is OK, in perfect running condition and displays correct readings as per actual consumption. After receipt of his complaint on 30.6.2012, O.P.No.1 convinced him that the said meter is not defective in any manner. The report regarding reading of meter by Sri Bagati Apna in not to the knowledge of the O.Ps and it is a fact that for the Month of June 2012 a provisional bill was issued and 344 units as average was charged considering the previous consumption. But in the Month of July 2012, the same was adjusted after taking the actual reading as 6710 units. The complainant is not a regular payer of electricity bills. He always keeps bills due for months together and now on the vague plea of revision of bills, he avoids payment of bills since the Month of March 2012 for which heavy amount is outstanding in his account. The allegations are concocted, frivolous, vexatious and false so the O.Ps are no way liable to pay any compensation or cost hence prayed to be dismiss in the interest of justice.
5. We perused the above pleadings of both the learned counsels for the complainant as well as for the O.Ps and have also examined the entire materials on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. We have also gone through the decision cited above by the learned counsel for the complainant in support of his case. Out of the above pleadings of the learned counsels for complainant as well as O.Ps, it appears that the sole dispute that is to be decided by this Forum whether the electricity bill issued by the O.Ps for the Month of May 2012 and subsequently were erroneous? If so, are the O.Ps liable to revise the same?
To answer the above questions and on merit of the case as well as after going through the documents like electricity bills and verifying the meter reading units of previous and post months of disputed bills placed in the case record, it is found that the present consumer comes under domestic category having 1.80 KW of load and belongs to BPL category. From the previous and post electricity bills of May 2012, it is also found that there is no evidence of 344 units in a single month except during the Month of May 2012. There is also no evidence of pending of huge amount as arrear against the complainant as contended by the O.Ps, since the arrear details of bill for the Month of May 2012 shows that there was only Rs.344/- pending as arrear against the complainant. The monthly average units as consumed by the complainant never exceed 150 units per month even during hot summer. The O.Ps contend that the meter of the complainant is OK and in perfect running condition and displays correct readings as per his actual consumption but we are unable to understand why the O.Ps issued the bills on average basis from February 2013 to September 2013. They could have rectified/revised the bills on the basis of Electricity Act 2003 and Regulations 2004 after receipt of complaints from the complainant. On the one hand the O.Ps contended that the meter is OK and on the other hand bills issued to the complainant on the basis of defective meter i.e. on average basis. This is not the way to issue electricity bills to the complainant. They could have revised the disputed bills of complainant on the basis of average meter reading for three consecutive months and the disputed bill could have been revised by the O.Ps on receipt of complaints from the complainant. So it appears that the O.Ps prepared the bill on random basis without taking into account to the actual meter reading of the complainant. Further, the present meter reading in the bill for the Month of May 2012 has been shown as 6707, but after going through the report of the Lineman and as per the complaint of the complainant dated 30.6.2012, it appears that there was wrong note of meter reading in the electricity bill issued for the Month of May 2012. As per the complaint dated 30.6.2012 of the complainant addressed to the Junior Engineer, the meter reading was 6430 as on 30.06.2012 and as per the report of Lineman the meter reading was 6433 as on 01.7.2012. The aforesaid two documents make it amply clear that there was wrong note of meter reading in the electricity bill for the Month of May 2012 which has been wrongly shown as 344 units in a single month. Hence, we feel that there was wrong note of meter reading in the electricity bill for the Month of May 2012 and nothing has been placed before us by the O.Ps to hold otherwise.
Further, with regard to the revision of erroneous bills, the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act 36 of 2003) and its Regulations 2004 are very clear in this regard. In the said Code, the Regulation-91 states that “In the event of any dispute in the billed amount, the consumer may lodge a complaint before the designated officer/agency as determined by the Licensee and pay the average of last 6 months consumption or the billed amount whichever is less within due date pending settlement of the dispute. The licensee shall resolve the dispute or communicate its decision with reasons to the consumer within a maximum period of one month as per Regulation-92”.
Further, Regulation-92 of the said Act states as follows:
92. i) If the licensee finds the bill to be erroneous, a revised bill shall be furnished to the consumer indicating a revised due date. Excess amount paid by the consumer shall be refunded by way of adjustment in the subsequent bill. Such excess amount shall be refunded together with interest at the rate of 1(one) % per month from the date of payment of excess amount.
ii) If the licensee finds the bill to be correct, the consumer shall be intimated accordingly and notified to pay the balance, if any, within fifteen days with interest at the rate of 1% per month from the due date. If the engineer does not resolve the dispute within one month stipulated in Regulation 9, the consumer will not be liable to pay the interest on the balance amount. However, if the dispute is not resolved due to negligence or non-cooperation of consumer, the consumer will be liable to pay interest.
iii) Failure to make payment as provided under Regulation 91 or Regulation 92(ii) above, shall merit action as provided in Regulation 100.
On plain reading of the Regulation-91 mentioned above, it is clear that in the event of any dispute in billed amount, the consumer may lodge a complaint before the designated officer/ agency and the license shall resolve the dispute or communicate its decision with reasons to the consumer within a maximum of one month. In the instant case, the complainant lodged a complaint about his bill dispute before O.P. No.1 on 4.8.2012 which was acknowledged by his office, the document placed in the case record as Annexure-6. He has also redressed his grievance before Junior Engineer and S.D.O, South Co through registered post which was received on 13.12.2012 and 17.12.2012 respectively. But the concerned officers did not pay any heed to his grievance and did not take any action to rectify/revise the bill amount. On perusal of the case record, it is also found that the complainant on 30.06.2012 through a written letter drew the attention of Junior Engineer to revise his energy bill where it was informed that in the Month of April 2012 his meter reading was 6363 and on 30.6.2012 it is 6430. But it is surprised that in the bill of May 2012 the meter reading was shown as 6707. Hence, the complainant requested the Junior Engineer to revise his energy bill but it was also ignored by the concerned Junior Engineer. He did not give any heed to his grievance and did not take any step to revise his disputed electricity bills in spite of several approaches and provisions under electricity law to do so within maximum of one month. In our view, this type of indifferent attitude towards the consumer is not good, since the officers are working as service providers for the interest of consumers. The most indecent thing that has happened in this case that when the matter was subjudice before this Forum, the O.Ps disconnected the power supply to the premises of the consumer during hot summer without any notice. We feel that the Officers have no regards to the legally constituted Forums under an Act of the Parliament. Even they are not caring to the Electricity Act, 2003 and its Regulation 2004. There is clear provision of giving notice of not less than 15 days under Regulation-100 before disconnection of power supply of the complainant. In this case the O.Ps without giving any notice disconnected the power supply of the complainant which is illegal under law and violated the provisions of said Regulations which amounts to deficiency in service. The O.Ps could have waited till disposal of the consumer dispute but instead of doing so they disconnected the power supply arbitrarily which is indecent and illegal under law. In this regard we would like to point out that in the written argument of O.Ps there is not a single word to defend their case that before disconnection of the power supply of the complainant, the O.Ps did serve notice as per Regulation-100 of Electricity Act, 2003 and its Regulations 2004. Moreover, on perusal of pleadings and documentary evidence, it is found that nothing has been placed before us by the learned counsel for the O.Ps which would persuade us to hold otherwise. Hence, the O.Ps did a legal injury to the complainant due to their arbitrary action and negligence by disconnecting the power supply without prior notice during subjudice of the matter before Consumer Forum. We, therefore, feel that the complainant has been suffered and harassed even after taking shelter under consumer protection law due to arbitrary action and negligence on part of O.Ps.
6. In the present case, a legal injury is caused to the complainant due to negligence on part of O.Ps and therefore, in order to recognize the legally protected rights of the complainant, he needs to be compensated. In this connection, we would like to cite the authority of Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Anr reported in 1986-99, Consumer 1456(NS) where it was observed as follows:
“Negligence is absence of reasonable or prudent care which a reasonable person is expected to observe in a given set of circumstance. But the negligence for which a consumer can claim to be compensated under this sub-section must cause some loss or injury to him. Loss is a generic term; it signifies some detriment, deprivation or damage. Injury too means any damage or wrong. It means invasion of any legally protected interest of another. Thus the provision of Section 14(1) (d) are attracted if the person from whom damages are claimed is found to have acted negligently and such negligence must result in some loss to the person claiming damages, injury, if any, must flow from negligence.
So, in the instant case the O.Ps negligently acted by violating the existing electricity rules and regulations and caused a legal injury to the complainant so they need to compensate. As far as compensation is concerned in this case, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards the loss suffered by him due to negligence of the O.Ps and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation besides he has also prayed to pay punitive damages in the fact and circumstance of the case. However, he has not corroborated his claim by filing any cogent documentary evidence that his actual loss was Rs.15,000/-. Thus, it appears to be hypothetical claim towards compensation. In this case, the O.Ps disconnected the power supply of the complainant on 19.03.2013 without prior notice. The complainant being a BPL consumer on 22.03.2013 deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards energy charges and Rs.150/- towards reconnection charges and availed restoration of power supply. The complainant and his family lived without power supply for four days during hot summer when the matter is subjudice before Consumer Forum due to the arbitrary and illegal actions of the O.Ps. So, the O.Ps are liable to pay compensation for their arbitrary and illegal actions and negligence caused to the complainant and his family.
7. In the light of above discussion, we allow the case of the complainant against all Opposite Parties since all are jointly and severally liable for their negligence for non-revision/ correction of the erroneous electricity bills. The Opposite Parties are liable to revise the erroneous electricity bills of the complainant as per Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulations under Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004. Considering the present fact and circumstance of the case, we feel that Rs.4,000/- would be just and proper towards compensation since the complainant remained without power supply for four days during hot summer and was harassed by the O.Ps as well as suffered from mental agony. With regard to the cost of litigation, we allow a moderate amount of Rs.1,000/- to meet his legal expenses, since he was forced to file this consumer complaint and to hire the services of an Advocate for the said purpose due to negligence and indifferent attitude of O.Ps. However, while making payment of compensation and cost to the complainant by the O.Ps, South Co is at liberty to fix the accountability on erring Officers who were responsible for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The South Co shall pay first the awarded amount to the complainant and the same may be recovered from such erring Officer(s) proportionately from their salary.
8. In the result, the case of the complainant is allowed against all O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to revise the electricity bills of the complainant and directed to issue revised bills as per prescribed Electricity Rules and Regulations. The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for negligence, arbitrary and illegal actions causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation. The above order to be complied by the O.Ps within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount to be recovered from the O.Ps with interest @4% per annum from the date of order till actual realization of the same is made under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case is disposed of accordingly.
9. The order is dictated and corrected by me on this 11th day of June 2014. Copy of the order shall be supplied to all parties free of cost as per rule.
(Dr. N. Tuna Sahu)
Member
I Agree (Miss S. Pattnaik)
President
I Agree (Mrs. Minati Pradhan)
Lady Member
