Adv.for the complainant - K.C.Mishra
Adv.for the O.P - J.Mohanty
Date of filing of the case – 02.03.2016
Date of order - 28.02.2017
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
The case of the complainant is that, the electrical connection to his house is in the name of his late father Chitrabhanu Singh Ray vide consumer No. D.O.M.46A11,Ac.No. 911311010087 and after the death of his father the complainant is using the same and paying energy charges regularly. Hence being a beneficiary the complainant has preferred this case alleging deficiency in electrical service.
2. The complainant is paying the electrical bill regularly as per meter reading, but to the surprise of the complainant suddenly on dated 21.07.2015 he was issued with a bill amounting to Rs. 3,411/- showing faulty meter. To this the complainant raised objection before the O.P. but no action has yet been taken by the authority. The complainant alleges that non-attendance of his complaint and raising arbitrary bill amounts to deficiency in service and has filed this case.
3. The O.P. contested the case by filing his written version. The O.P. admitted the issue of average bill for an amount of Rs. 3,411/- and submitted that, he has not received any complaint from the complainant regarding irregular bill. The O.P. further submitted that, since the meter of the complainant is a mechanical one and there is tempering in the body seal of the meter it creates a doubt and hence average bills were issued and after the report of the billing agency the bill was issued as per consumption from September 2015. The O.P. claims no deficiency in service on his part.
4. Heard both the parties. Perused the material available on record. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that when there is no defect in the meter the O.P. has to issue the electricity charges as per consumption. On the other hand the learned advocate for the O.P. submitted that, since there is tempering in the body seal of the meter the O.P. has raised average bill as per the OERC guideline and hence there is no deficiency in service.
5. Perused the documentary evidence available on record. It is seen that the complainant is paying the Bill for an amount of Rs. 885/- regularly and has paid Rs.3411/- on dated 23.7.15. The O.P. has also admitted that on the basis of average reading the bills were issued for the month of June and July 2015. The O.P. has also admitted that, the bill is liable to be revised from February 2015 to July 2015. The O.P. has also admitted that, he has acted as per the report of the billing agency. There is no evidence on behalf of the O.P. either affidavit evidence or report of electrical inspector to show that the meter of the complainant is a defective one. With these admitted fact and material available on record it is evident that without any valid reasons the O.P. has raised the bills for an average basis. The O.P. has acted simply on the report of the billing agency. It is seen that non technical persons are engaged in meter reading on lease basis and their report cannot be said to be correct without a report from the technical person. Therefore raising bills on average basis without meter reading is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P .
6. Due to the aforesaid act of the O.P. the complainant has sustain financial loss and has been suffered a lot by moving to the authority and hence the complainant is entitled to compensation.
ORDER
The O.P. is directed to revise the bill of the complainant from June 2015 till date as per Meter reading and to pay Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousands) to the complainant towards cost and compensation within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
