PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties   (in short O.Ps.).

            2. The complainant is a bonafide customer of the O.Ps who has connected his residence with electricity supplied and distributed by the O.Ps for the consumer No. 341203410337 for his residence situated at Sundarpur. The complainant has been paying the billing amounts for the usage of electricity of his domestic dwelling unit regularly as per the bills. There was no dispute over the billing amount till the month of July 2022 and when for the first time on 21.07.2022 the complainant got the electricity bill of his residential house, for the very firsts time he came to know that an amount of Rs.6358/- has been assessed by the meter reader duly engaged by the O.P.No.3 and when the complainant complained regarding such a huge amount of bill to the office of the O.P.No.3, they urged that the bill has been generated as per the usage of the electricity and there is no fraud from their side. In the meanwhile on the next month i.e. on 25.08.2022 the consumption bill was of 1462 units and assessed to Rs.8998/-, to which the complainant yet again visited the office of the O.P.No.3 and showed his previous bills which has already been cleared and thus wants the bill of the months of July and August to be revised. But the O.P.No.3 suggested this complainant to go to the O.P.No.1 & 2 for such revision of bill amounts. Thereby the complainant as per the advice of the O.P.No.3 had been to the office of the O.P.No.1 & 2 but in vain. As the matter stood thus, the complainant has submitted an application dated 30.08.2022 for settlement of bill amount of Rs.8998/- and to check the meter installed in his premises but the O.P.No.3 nor the O.P.No.1 & 2 took any appropriate steps for the benevolent requests of the complainant and remained silent, for which the complainant being an old and retired person has been suffering with much mental stress and physical agonies. Again on 23.11.2022, the TPSODL has sent a message through mobile of the complainant on dated 23.11.2022, advising the complainants to pay an amount of Rs.30052.00 as per the unit billing of 2422. So the complainant after receipt of the said message got astonished as there is no such unit has been shown in the meter and he is no way liable to deposits the said amount as massaged by the O.P. company. Inspite of several approaches by the complainant to both the O.Ps has not taken any interests to settle the billing amounts nor any steps to check the meter, although they have in receipts of Rs.60/-towards checking of the meter rather the O.Ps without convening the right thing to settle the dispute have given evasive reply and did not comply the legal demand of the complainant. Due to deficiency of service of the O.Ps, the complainant has been suffering since 21.07.2022 and for these inactions of the O.Ps the complainant suffered serious mental agony resulting several ailments leading to hypertensions for which the complainant has spent a considerable amount for his treatment. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to settle the billing unit of the complainant or otherwise to change the meter if found defect, and further compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards physical and mental agony in the best interest of justice.

            3. Admitting the complaint, the Commission issued notice to the opposite parties.

            4. The Opposite Parties filed written version through their advocates. It is stated that the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition are all not correct. The complainant is put to strict proof of all such allegations which are not specifically admitted. It is true to say that the complainant is a consumer of electricity of TPSODL having consumer No. 341203410337. It is true to say that in the month of July 2022 an amount of Rs.6358/- is billed and in the month of Augusts 2022 an amount of Rs.8998/-is billed as per the reading observed in the meter installed in the premises of the complainant. It is true to say that bill of Rs.30,052/- was billed in the month of November 2022 which includes the current bill of Rs.14,333/-, but it is false to say that’s the O.Ps remained silent and did not take any appropriate steps to check the meter on the application and approach the complainant. After getting intimation from the complainant, the O.Ps examined the billing of the old meter having SL. No. SGEW003617 and came to know that the old meter was recording higher consumption and thereafter a new meter having SL.No. TS0180330 was installed in the premises of the complainants replacing the older one on 23.04.2023. As per the provisions of Reg. 155 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of supply) code, 2019 the bill for the defective period of the complainant will be revised as per the average of six consecutive billing of the new installed meter. The billing dispute of the complainant will be resolved very soon after taking the average consumption of 6 billing period and till that period the complainant be directed to pay the monthly consumption bill.  Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the case in the interest of justice.

            4. On the date of hearing advocate for both parties are present. We heard argument at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, and written argument and documents available in the case record.

            5. On analyzing the evidences available in the case record, it is apparent that, the complainant has made a written grievance letter on 30.08.2022 for defective meter to the opposite party no.2 to settlement of bill in Con. A/c No.:3412-0341-0337 for the bill period 22.07.2022 to 25.08.2022, units billed:1462 for Rs.8998/- and also filed a Consumer Complaint Form of TPSODL on 30.08.2022. But the opposite party no.2 has not been issued any reply to the complainant. The complainant received another bill in the same consumer account on 21.11.2022 vide bill no.:341211122000013M3471 for units billed:2422 and payment amount:Rs.30052/-. The opposite parties admitted the billing issues of the complainant. The opposite parties after observing the meter bearing Sl.No.:SGE003617 replaced the said meter with new meter vide no.:TS0180330 on 23.01.2023 due to the old meter was recording higher consumption. In accordance to the Reg. 155 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 the bill for the defective period revised and revised the bill for the consumer no.:3412-0341-0337 vide No.:674(4)/Dated:25.09.2023 i.e., after 8 months but did not served it to the complainant. There is no document showed that, the opposite parties have served the said letter dtd:25.09.2023 to the complainant timely. Rather, the Complainant acknowledged the said letter through his Ld. Counsel on 16.02.2024 in the premises of the Hon’ble District Commission, Ganjam, Berhampur. In the instant case, the opposite party no.2 neither taken any steps nor resolve the dispute in accordance to the statutory provisions contemplated under Reg.149 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019. It is tantamount to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 is also not complied with mandatory provisions laid down under Reg.155 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019. The very act of the opposite party no.2 speaks volumes and it is unfair trade practice. The opposite parties have not filed any documents in the present case regarding information provided to the complainant on any observation and revision of bill which is mandatory under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019. In view of the entire episode, there was deficiency in services in the part of the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 has taken steps to replace the defective meter and revision of bill after receipt of the notice in the case.

Keeping on view of the rulings laid in ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy in Civil Appeal No.:6391 of 2021, disposed of on Feb. 7, 2023 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that, “Whether Deficiency in service to lead to compensation under consumer protection laws” the Commission allowed the Complaint on contest against the opposite party no.2 and dismissed against the opposite party no. 1 & 3. The opposite party no.2 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of payment from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 08.12.2022 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all such dues.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 28.02.2024