SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s 12 of C.P. Act read with Sec. 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, who are the Electrical authorities with a prayer to direct the Ops for correction of defective bills from the beginning and not to disconnect the power supply and to receive the current monthly bill from him.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant is a domestic consumer under the Ops bearing consumer No.BM-12150, A/c No.324221020512 having contract demand of 1.00 KW since 1980. From the very beginning the energy consumption was coming within 50 units, but subsequently the meter was found defective since 1986. Thereafter, another meter was installed and the average consumption was as before, but the said meter was not functioning properly and the complainant has been charged with load factor bill 144 units per month. On complaint about the same, the Ops did not pay any heed, but in the month of April, 1990 the load was enhanced to 2.00 KW without any verification or knowledge of the complainant and used to serve bill for 288 units per month. After repeated request and approaches, OP No.2 & 3 installed a new meter in the month of November, 2007 which was coming 64 units per month, but the arrear outstanding dues was shows at Rs.67,700/- up to September, 2007. Further, the Ops have not received the current bill amount on the ground that the complainant has not cleared up the outstanding amount. The Ops have threatened to disconnect the power supply to his premises. It is stated by the complainant that he filed an application before the GRF, Balasore on 7.3.2014 which was registered as GRF Case No.83 of 2014 and while disposing of the said case, GRF, Balasore directed the OP i.e. the SDO (Elect), Balasore to recast the energy bill from May, 2003 to June, 2006 on average consumption basis by taking IR-0 and FR-6650 units as on June, 2006. Further, the complainant was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the arrear outstanding dues within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and the OP was directed to implement the said order within 30 days. When the Ops did not carry out the order of the GRF, Balasore, being aggrieved, the complainant filed appeal before the Ombudsman (Electrical), Bhubaneswar, but till date no order has been passed by the learned Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar. Taking advantage of the matter, the Ops threatened to disconnect the power supply which otherwise amounts to deficiency in service by the Ops. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file the present case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-
- Photocopy of application of complainant dated 11.4.2011.
- Photocopy of order dated 7.5.14 passed by the GRF, Balasore.
- Photocopy of grievance petition sent to Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar.
- Photocopy of energy bills & payment receipts.
3. The Ops have appeared and filed their joint written version challenging the maintainability of the case and cause of action for filing the case. They have stated, inter alia, that the complainant is a domestic consumer having CD 2 KW. He has not made any complaint before the Ops that they have served the L.F. Bill regularly since 1986. The meter installed in the month of December, 2007 and the average consumption is more than 64 units. The Ops have stated that the complainant has filed a complaint before the GRF, Balasore vide Case No.83 of 2014 and the order passed by the GRF, Balasore has already been carried out by the Ops and thus the Ops have not committed any negligence or any unfair practice. But the complainant has not yet been deposited the outstanding amount of Rs.25,000/- in view of the order passed by the GRF, Balasore. Further, the complainant has not paid the monthly dues. In the month of March, 2014, the complainant had only paid Rs.5,000/-. The complainant is a regular defaulter consumer. Further, there is no record to show that the complainant has filed appeal before the learned Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar against the order passed by the GRF, Balasore. In the above facts and circumstances, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case.
4. During course of hearing, it is urged on behalf of the complainant that the complainant is a domestic consumer under the Ops. From the very beginning the energy consumption was coming within 50 units, but subsequently the meter was found defective since 1986. New meter was installed and the average consumption was as before, but the said meter was not functioning properly and the complainant has been charged with load factor bill 144 units per month. On complaint about the same, the Ops did not pay any heed, but in the month of April, 1990 the load was enhanced to 2.00 KW without any verification or knowledge of the complainant and used to serve bill for 288 units per month. After repeated request and approaches, OP No.2 & 3 installed another new meter in the month of November, 2007 which was coming 64 units per month, but the arrear outstanding dues was shows at Rs.67,700/- up to September, 2007. Further, the Ops have not received the current bill amount on the ground that the complainant has not cleared up the outstanding amount. It is further submitted that the complainant filed an application before the GRF, Balasore on 7.3.2014 which was registered as GRF Case No.83 of 2014 and while disposing of the said case, GRF, Balasore directed the SDO (Elect), Balasore to recast the energy bill from May, 2003 to June, 2006 on average consumption basis by taking IR-0 and FR-6650 units as on June, 2006. Further, the complainant was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the arrear outstanding dues within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and the OP was directed to implement the said order within 30 days. When the Ops did not carry out the order of the GRF, Balasore, being aggrieved, the complainant filed appeal before the Ombudsman (Electrical), Bhubaneswar, but till date no order has been passed by the learned Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar. Taking advantage of the matter, the Ops threatened to disconnect the power supply which otherwise amounts to deficiency in service by the Ops.
5. On the other hand, during course of hearing, learned counsel for Ops submitted that the complainant is a domestic consumer with CD 2 KW. The complainant has filed a complaint before the GRF, Balasore vide Case No.83 of 2014 and the order passed by the GRF, Balasore in the said case has already been carried out by the Ops and thus the Ops have not committed any negligence or any unfair practice. If at all, the complainant aggrieved in complying the order of GRF, Balasore, then he may seek remedy before the higher forum and not before this Commission and thus the complaint filed before this Commission is not maintainable.
6. From the above rival submissions of both the parties, one thing is clear that the complainant had filed GRF Case No.83 of 2014 (vide Annexure-2) being aggrieved with the overt act of the Ops which was disposed of on 7.5.2014. While disposing of the aforesaid GRF Case, learned GRF, Balasore directed the S.D.O. (Elect), Balasore to recast the energy bill from May, 2003 to June, 2006 on average consumption basis by taking IR-0 and FR-6650 units as on June, 2006. Further, the complainant was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the arrear outstanding dues within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and the OP was directed to implement the said order within 30 days. The Ops have claimed that they have already complied with the order passed by the learned GRF, Balasore, but the complainant has not yet paid the amount so directed by the learned GRF, Balasore.
7. It is the admitted fact that the complainant has filed a grievance petition before the GRF, Balasore which was registered bearing GRF Case No.83 of 2014 and the said case has already been disposed of on 7.5.2014 with a certain direction to the OP No.2. It is the claim of the complainant that in spite of the direction, the Ops have not yet complied the same. The Ops should have been obeyed and complied the direction passed by the GRF, Balasore. Moreover, not a single document is placed before this Commission to prove that the Ops have complied with the order passed by the GRF, Balasore. Therefore, it cannot be believable that the Ops have complied with the order of the GRF, Balasore. Rather, the documents placed on behalf of the Ops by itself cannot satisfy this Commission that the Ops have revised the arrear outstanding bills which they should have done within the time limit given by the learned GRF, Balasore.
8. On the other hand, when the Ops have flouted the order of the GRF, Balasore, the complainant has every liberty to approach the higher forum against the Ops to seek proper remedy as per Sub-section (6) & (7) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, it is seen from the documents relied on by the complainant vide Annexure-3 that the complainant, being aggrieved with the order of the learned GRF, Balasore, has presented appeal before the Hon’ble Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar seeking remedy in the matter. It is also admitted by the complainant that the said appeal before the Hon’ble Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar has not yet been disposed of. In this context, when the complainant has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar and has not yet been disposed of, this Commission has got no jurisdiction to sit over the matter. Therefore, the present case before this Commission is not maintainable. Consequently, the complainant is not treated as a consumer nor he has any cause of action to file the case. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief what-so-ever in this case.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 4th day of June, 2024 under signature & seal of the Commission.