DATE OF DISPOSAL: 14.05.2019
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Abhimanyu Nayak has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is a bonafide domestic consumer having connected load of 0.52KW vide his Consumer No.2915022002 792213 (Old-22/13D2L7) under the service provider SOUTHCO and authority of the O.P. Since 1992, he has been receiving erroneous energy bills under defective meter status; from the O.P. he had deliberately approached to the O.P. and his subordinate J.E. for rectification of his erroneous bills and replacement of a new correct meter. But they paid no heed to the same. After repeated approaches, the O.P. changed his meter on 22.06.2004 but the complainant started paying energy bills regularly from the date of replacement of his meter. But the O.P. did not revise his previous defective bills and avoided on some pleas or other. So on 20.05.2006 the complainant brought his billing dispute before the G.R.F. Berhampur and prayed for redressal of his grievance vides their case No.GRF-350/2006. Inspite of notice served on the O.P. he did not appear. So, the Hon’ble Forum heard the matter on merit and disposed of the case on 29.04.2007 directing the O.P. “ to issue the revised energy charges bill up to 10/2006 to the consumer within 03 days of receipt of the order deducting the payments made by the consumer and allowing rebate during the above period and failure of which the O.P. has to pay Rs.50/- per each day of default as compensation to the consumer as per Regulation and further directed the complainant to pay the revised bill amount within 15 days of receipt of the same from the O.P. otherwise the O.P. can disconnect power supply”. But the O.P. did not oblige to the same order. He neither complied the order nor paid any compensation as fixed by the Hon’ble Forum and remained silent. So having no other recourse, the complainant had approached to the Ombudsman-II, OERC, Bhubaneswar for redressal of his grievance vide their C.R. Case No. OM-II(S)-07/2008. While disposing of the same case by way of conciliation, the Ombudsman-II,OERC, Bhubaneswar by their order dated 18.11.2018 had observed that “It has been agreed by both the parties that the average units would be assessed @72 units per month w.e.f. 08/1995 till date and that the petitioner would cooperate in the matter for installation of a new meter to be supplied by the respondent within 15 days and the petitioner has to pay the arrear dues as per the revised bill to be served on him within 15 days”. The O.P. again disobliged to the same order and remained silent. Though his meter was replaced on 04.12.2008 and he received the energy bills and approached the O.P. for payment of the bills, he was not allowed to deposit his energy charges, in 03 consecutive months without any reasoned cause. Again on 03.08.2010 the complainant approached to the Ombudsman-II, OERC Bhubaneswar for execution of their earlier order dated 18.11.2008. Regretting the long delay made by the O.P. in executing the same order, though they admitted the case vide C.R.Case No.S-15/2010 but after receipt of misleading counter and erroneous bill revision statement of the O.Ps, they heard the mattered exparte and disposed of the same hurriedly on 17.09.2010, behind the back of the complainant directing him to pay Rs.9,477.53 till June 2010 alongwith monthly electricity charges for the month of July, August and September 2010 by 15th October 2010. However, given him liberty to file a fresh case before the G.R.F. Berhampur if he is not satisfied with the revised billing statement submitted by the O.P. While preparing the above impugned bill revision statement, did not debit his payment of Rs.3175.00 in total, deposited under their Receipt No.50230 dated 03/1995 Rs.1842/-, Receipt No. 3469 dated 10.12.2015 Rs.333/-, Receipt No.046406 dated 21.06.2008 Rs.150/-, Receipt No.354349 dated 26.03.95 Rs.500/-, Receipt No.869808 dated 21.02.2008 Rs.150/-, Receipt No. 853356 dated 28.03.2000 Rs.200/-. So, the complainant again assailing the order date d 17.09.2010 passed by the Ombudsman-II, approached to the G.R.F. Berhampur on 05.10.2010 praying to direct the O.P. to adjust his above paid sum i.e. Rs.3175.00 from 9,477.53 and issue final bill so as to enable him to pay the rest due and close the arrear account. But G.R.F. Berhampur also did not register any case basing on the application dated 5.10.2010 delivered by registered post with AD. Taking undue advantage of the same the O.P. and his J.E. staff deliberately threatened the complainant to disconnect his power supply. So on 01.02.2013 he again served a reminder letter to the G.R.F. Berhampur and to the O.P. by registered post with AD. But his approaches were in vain. Rather, vindictively the O.P. disconnected his power supply on 12.07.2013 and caused substantial harassment and losses to the complainant. So, he sent a legal notice through his advocate on 06.09.2013 by Registered post with AD requesting the O.P. to adjust his above paid sum i.e. Rs.3175.00 from 9,477.53 and issue final bill so as to enable him to pay the rest due and close the arrear account. He further requested him to reconnect his power supply and for replacement of his energy meter which provides abnormal and exorbitant meter reading instead of his actual consumption. Even after receipt of the same notice the O.P. did not take any action and remained silent. So ultimately, the complainant had approached this Hon’ble Forum to redress his above long standing grievances. The O.P. appeared and instead of redressing his grievances, contended all false and vexatious allegations that he has not submitted his original receipts and etc. which are not tenable. Inspite of repeated approaches the O.P. did not provide power supply to his house and let him and his family to suffer in dark for about 2 years. When he could arrange and deposited Rs.8000/- and submitted a new meter, on 13.03.2015 the O.P. provided him reconnection of power supply. Since then he is paying the energy bills regularly till date. The O.P. being a responsible officer of SOUTHCO the service provider is liable to provide good and qualitative services as provided under the O.E.R.C. Distribution (Condition of supply) code of 2004 and the Electricity Act of 2003. But in the instant case the O.P. has been absolutely failed and committed deficiency of services and unfair trade practices and thereby caused substantial loss, suffering, harassment and mental agony to the complainant, entitling him for grant of adequate compensation cost etc. Alleging deficiency in service on the parts of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to revise his defective bills, adjusting all payments made up-to-date, grant rebate as provided under OERC 2004 Regulation and replace his defective meter, awarding cost, compensation etc. in favour of the complainant for the ends of natural justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P. filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the facts stated and allegations raised in the complaint of the petitioner are all not true and correct and the allegations those are not specifically admitted by the O.P. are deemed to be denied by him and the petitioner is to give strict proof of his allegations before the Hon’ble Forum. Sri Abhimanyu Nayak is a consumer having 0.57kw. His premises are situated at village Badakodanda. The complainant is using electricity for domestic purpose. In reply to para-1 & 2 it is to state that the complainant has applied before Ombudsman-II Bhubaneswar vide CR case No.S-15/2010 regarding the billing dispute from 8/1995 to 11/2008 and in this matter the O.P. submit his counter before Ombudsman-II within the time bound with bill revision proposal for the period of 8/1995 to 11/2008. The copy of the objection as well as the bill revision proposal was served upon the complaint petition. Finally the Ombudsman has ordered on 17.09.2010 that the bill revision proposal submitted by O.P. is carried out and direct to applicant to deposit Rs.9477.53 up to 6/2010 and directed to O.P. to withdraw Rs.6734.00 from the bill of applicant. The order of Ombudsman is carried out by O.P. on 9/2010 and the same amount Rs.6734.00 is withdrawn from the bill of complainant. After revision of the bill since 9/2010 the complainant has not paid any amount up to 5/2013 and availing power supply in actual consumption on meter reading with a plea that the bill is under dispute up to 4/2013 and on 5/2013 the power supply disconnected by concerned JE ESO-II due to non paying of outstanding dues. After disconnected the power supply the complainant make correspondence over phone that in the bill revision which is submitted before Ombudsman is wrong and 06 numbers receipt is to be deducted from the bill revision proposal (EARLIER SUBMITTED BEFORE OMBUDSMAN) on quarry by the O.P. it is found that out of 06 receipt 02 numbers is beyond the revision period and 04 numbers amounting Rs.833.00 will deduct subject to verify of original receipt because this period is before computerize period. But the complainant has not submitted the same receipt before undersign till now. The O.P. is ready to deduct the said amount. After disconnection the complainant paid Rs.6000.00 on 13.03.2015 and the O.P. reconnected the power supply of complainant on same date with installing a new meter produced by him. On 21.01.2016 the complainant agreed to produce the original copy of receipt before the undersigned within 20.02.2016 but yet not produced same requested. On 21.02.2016 complainant requested the O.P. to revise the bill for the period 07/2010 to 4/2013 but as the energy bill have been generated on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the energy meter, the bill can not be revised as per existing law in force. The case is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary and proper parties. No cause of action ever arose to file this dispute and alleged causes of actions are created stories adopted for the case purpose. Otherwise also this dispute is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. On the date of hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the Opposite Party as since long no steps is taken either on behalf of complainant or his advocate. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and documents placed on the case record. At the time of hearing the advocate for O.P. vehemently contended that on 21.02.2016 complainant requested the O.P. to revise the bill for the period 07/2010 to 4/2013 but as the energy bill have been generated on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the energy meter, the bill cannot be revised as per existing law in force. It reveals that the grievance of the complainant has been redressed by the Ombudsman in due course. Further it also reveals from the copy of the electricity bill that the meter which was installed in the complainant’s residence was not defective as such monthly bill was issued to the complainant on actual consumption basis. Hence taking all the materials on record in to consideration in our considered view the O.P. is not negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.
In the result the complainant’s case is dismissed against O.P. without cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 14th May 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
