Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                    Complainant Dilip Panda has filed this case u/s 12 of the CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties for providing him with an erratic energy bill and not rectifying it in spite of repeated approaches and praying therein for a direction to the Opposite Parties to waive out the arrear amount claimed in the bill on 15.01.2017 and provide him with a correct bill basing on actual consumption.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties under domestic category who was paying his energy bills from time to time without any arrear. In the month of June 2016 Opposite Parties claimed a sum of Rs. 29,863/- as current bill. The petitioner protested and lodged complaint. But instead of rectifying the erratic energy bill, they claimed a sum of Rs. 40, 350/- in the bill dt. 15.01.2017. In spite of repeated approached, the OPs did not respond. Hence the complainant filed this case before this Forum for the reliefs as discussed in the preceding paragraph.

2.           After receipt of notice, the OPs appeared through their Advocate and filed their joint written statement. In their written statements, the OPs stated that the petitioner is not paying his energy charges regularly and a bill for Rs. 29863/- has been served on the consumer in June 2016. The amount has increased as the bill was prepared on house lock basis as the owner was absent and other inmates restrained the meter reader from taking meter reading. Therefore, average bills are prepared regularly and the bill was higher when the actual meter reading was noted in presence of the complainant in June-2016. The bill for January 2017, for  Rs. 40,350/- is neither illegal nor excessive. The complainant has never approached the OPs in writing for any defect in the meter before the competent authority. The complainant has attempted to shift his negligence to the side of the Opposite Parties. As the OPs have not caused any deficiency and has provided the complainant with correct bill, the case against them be dismissed with costs.

3.           It is admitted by the complainant and Opposite Parties that the bill was prepared on provisional basis and this practice continued for a period of nine months. The OPs have stated in their written statement that bills were prepared on house lock basis. The inmates of the house did not allow the meter reader to take actual reading of the consumption made by the consumer as the owner of the house was absent. The Opposite Parties have not uttered a single word what prevented them not to take recourse to the provisions of Electricity Act. 2003 in such situation It appears that the Opposite Parties have failed to initiate proper legal action against the complainant for preventing the meter reader to take reading of the consumption of energy when sufficient authority has been vested on them. Instead of exercising the power vested under law, the Opposite Parties went on issuing bills after bills on provisional basis which ultimately gave rise to a dispute between the parties.

4.           As there is suspicion by the complainant, a check meter requires to be installed in the house of the complainant to examine whether the meter installed in the house of the consumer is giving proper reading or not.

5.           It appears from the bill for the month of July-2016 that the meter reading has been recorded for the month of July-2016 and the bills have been prepared accordingly. But the Opposite Parties have not deducted the amount which they have already collected from the consumer by virtue of the provisional bill during this period. Besides, the total reading has not been split up month wise from October-2015 to July-2016.

6.           As the bills have been prepared on erratic manner, it needs to be corrected and hence the order.

O R D E R

                    The complaint petition is allowed on contest in part against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed to install a check meter by the side of the existing meter. In the event of discrepancy recorded between the meters, the reading of the meter which records less shall be treated as final and the bills be revised accordingly by splitting the reading spread over the months starting from October-2015 to July-2016 equally. The payments made by the complainant for the period from October-2015 till July 2016 be deducted from the bills and corrected accordingly. A fresh and correct bill be supplied to the complainant within 90 days from the date of order and in the meantime, no coercive action shall be instituted by the Opposite Parties against the complainant for non-payment of the disputed amount. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own cost.