Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenge under this Appeal is the Order dated 05-05-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in CC/08/2012, whereof the complaint has been dismissed.

In a short compass, case of the Complainant is that he took a domestic service connection from the OP No. 1 on 17-01-2001.  Since the meter installed turned out to be defective, a new meter was installed on 30-12-2005.  As the second meter installed was also found defective, a complaint was lodged before the CGRO, who passed an order on 28-05-2010 directing the OP No. 1 to install one check meter for monitoring the performance of the existing meter and rectify the bill for the period from January, 2008 to November, 2009 on succeeding consumption recorded by the check meter.  It is alleged that the OP No. 1 failed to prepare correct bills and sent erroneous bills on the basis of reading of the defective meter.  The Complainant though sent Lawyer’s notice to the OP No. 1 to eradicate the anomaly, instead of taking remedial measures, OP No. 1 arbitrarily disconnected the service connection of the Complainant.  Therefore, Complainant filed a complaint case before the Ld. District Forum.  Since the said complaint was dismissed, the Complainant moved an Appeal before this Commission.  After hearing both sides, this Commission remanded the case to the Ld. District Forum to dispose the matter on merit.  However, this time too, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the case for which present Appeal is filed.

Case of the OP No. 1, on the other hand, is that, bills were raised up to the month of May, 2008 as per reading of the last meter.  Subsequently, the Complainant raised dispute regarding the said meter and lodged complaint before the CGRO. Therefore, no bills were prepared for the period from June, 2008 onwards.  As per the direction of the CGRO, one check meter was installed and bills were raised for the period from June, 2010 to August, 2010 as per the reading noted by the check meter; but bills for the period from May, 2008 to May, 2010 were prepared as total 8,610 units was seen in the previous meter.  The said unpaid consumption of 8,610 units was adjusted with the bill for the period from June, 2010 to Aug., 2010.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocates for the parties were heard at length.  Besides this, we have also gone through the material on record.

It appears from the documents on record that vide Order dated 24-12-2013 in Appeal No. FA/660/2012, this Commission directed the Ld. District Forum to re-hear the case on merit and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in the matter.

It is true that, in terms of said order, the Ld. District Forum did adjudicate the case afresh.  However, on a reference to the impugned order we find that the Ld. District Forum went terribly wrong in getting into the root of the problem.

It is observed by the Ld. District Forum that on careful consideration of the entire case, it found that the dispute had already been settled effectively.  Thereby, it observed that the Appellant was entitled to get restoration of supply of electricity subject on payment of unpaid bills, if any, by means of reasonable instalments. 

We afraid, the aforementioned observation of the Ld. District Forum was completely out of sync with the situation in the ground.  Fact remains that by passing an interim order on 03-02-2012, the Ld. District Forum itself directed the Respondent No. 1 to restore the service connection on payment of 50% of the outstanding dues and as it transpires, following restoration of the service connection, the Appellant is still enjoying service connection. Therefore, there was no question of restoration of the service connection afresh.

As against the findings of the Ld. District Forum of effective settlement of the bone of contention between the parties, we find that the main grievance of the Appellant still remains unresolved.

By issuing a legal notice on 20-12-2010, the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant punched several holes in respect of the statement prepared by the Respondent No. 1 and on due consideration of the points raised therein, we find that indeed the statement prepared by the Respondent No. 1 was full of errors.  Also, through the petition of complaint, the Appellant raised some pertinent questions regarding the billing disputes.  Unfortunately, we do not come across any proper explanation to such points from the side of the Respondents, let alone stamp out those anomalies. 

According to the Electricity Act and Rules framed thereunder, in case of testing of meter at consumer’s premises, the testing of meter shall be done for a minimum consumption of 1KWh.  In case the meter is found OK, no further action shall be taken.  However, in case the meter is found fast/slow by the licensee, and the consumer agrees to the report, the meter shall be replaced by a meter within 15 days, and bills of previous three months prior to the month in which the dispute has arisen shall be adjusted in the subsequent bill as per the test results.

In this case, notwithstanding a check meter had been installed following intervention of the CGRO, the Respondent No. 1 has not adhered to other statutory obligations, including installation of a new tested meter, as mandated under the law.  This is unacceptable.

What was otherwise a statutory obligation on the part of the Respondent No. 1, as it transpires, the Appellant had to run from pillar to post to try and secure the same, yet as ill luck would have it, justice has not been done to him so far.  A new tested meter should be installed at the residence of the Appellant within a fortnight hence.

Regarding the billing dispute, since both the meters installed so far are found to be faulty, Respondent No. 1 is duty bound to prepare fresh bill for the entire disputed period strictly on the basis of the test result and after adjustment of excess billing amount, if any outstanding amount is still left overdue, Respondent No. 1 shall offer due opportunity to the Appellant to clear the same in easy instalment stretching over a period of not less than one year and if it is found that the Appellant has made excess payment, the excess amount shall be adjusted from subsequent bills under intimation to the Appellant. Under no circumstances, the Respondent No. 1 shall disconnect the service connection of the Appellant over non-payment of outstanding due or issue threatening letter to snap the service connection till the dispute is duly resolved.  In case of any deviation in the matter of proper implementation of this order, Appellant shall be at liberty to prosecute the Respondent No. 1 in accordance with law.

The Appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal is allowed on contest.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Respondent No. 1 shall do the needful as directed hereinabove.  For causing unwarranted harassment to the Appellant, Respondent No. 1 shall pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Appellant within 40 days hence, i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint before the Ld. District Forum till full and final payment is made.