Adv.for the complainant - P.K.Mishra and S.P.Mishra
Adv.for the O.P - J.Mohanty.
Date of filing of the case – 11.01.2016
Date of order -22.02.2017
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. The case of the complainant is that, he had taken electricity connection to his house for
domestic use from the O.P. after observing all formalities and on payment of installation fees. Since the date of installation the complainant was issued with the electricity bill as per consumption and is paying the same regularly. But to his surprise in the year 2008 suddenly he was issued with an arrear bill amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, to which he raised objection before the OP. but the OP. has not taken any step to rectify the same, and lastly the complainant represented the Head Office at Burla, but no authority has listen the complainant. Hence the Complaint.
2. The O.P. has contested the case by filing his written version. The O.P. has denied the complainant’s allegation and averred that, the complainant has suppressed the meter reading for which the bill was raised on an average basis as per load factor i.e. @ 144 units per month and due to the defect in the meter the same was replaced with a new one after July 2011 and the complainant was issued bills under O.K. category up to May 2013. Further the OPs. have averred that, instead of approaching the Grievance Redressal Forum established by the WESCO, the complainant has preferred this case before this Forum which is not maintainable. The OP. Claims no deficiency in service on his part.
3 Heard both the parties. Perused the documentary evidence available on record. Coming to the
maintainability of the case, it is the case of the complainant that he is using the electricity energy from the O.P. and is paying the monthly bills. Therefore the electricity energy used by the complainant is a service provided by the O.P. for which he is receiving the monthly bill amount and when there is any dispute relating to the said service a consumer complaint before this Forum is maintainable. When the complainant has choose this Forum for redressal of his grievance the O.P. has no right to take the complainant to any other Forum as per his choice. This itself shows that the O.P. is not fair in providing service to the complainant.
4. Coming to the merit of the case, it is seen from the documentary evidence filed by the complainant that, the O.P. is issuing carbon copy of the payment receipt and is not providing original receipt to the complainant. The O.P. has not explained the reason for the same. This fact itself speak that the O.P. is not fair in providing service to the complainant. There must be some ill intention of the O.P. along with the Meter reader in issuing duplicate money receipt, for which correct bills are not issued to the consumer.
5. In Para 3 of the version the O.P. has admitted that, the meter of the complainant was replaced with a new one after July 2011 but the bill was raised under Lock code. Further in Para 6 of the version the O.P. admitted that, the meter reader declared the meter as a defective one. There is no evidence available on record to show that, the meter has been checked by an electrical inspector or any other technical person. Simply as per the choice of the Meter reader the bills are raised by the O.P. under lock code. It is well experienced that, the O.P. is engaging non technical person for meter reading on lease basis and without any supervision, simply going by the meter reader in raising the bills of the consumer amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. When the defective meter was replaced with a new one and there is no believable evidence relating to the defect in the meter, the O.P. is under obligation to raise the energy bill as per consumption.
6. It is seen from the material available on record that, the complainant has moved to the different authority for revision of the energy bill but no step has yet been taken by the authority and the authority is simply acting as per the choice of the meter reader, for which the complainant has been sufficiently harassed and is entitled to compensation. In the complaint petition the complainant has assessed Rs. 50,000/- as his actual loss but no evidence for his actual loss has been filed by him. Hence he is entitled to Rs.5000/- towards compensation.
ORDER
The O.P. is directed to revise the electric bill of the complainant from 2008 till date as per consumption and to pay Rs.5000/-(five thousands) to the complainant towards compensation and cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case of the complainant is allowed.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
