J U D G M E N T
Sri Rama Chandra Das, President - The complaint filed this complaint under Sec 12 of C.P Act against the OPs with prayer to direct the OPs to (1) revise the electric bill from the date of electric connection (2) not to disconnect the electric supply (3) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and (4) litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-
2. The complainant case is that in the year 2011 he applied for electric connection to his house in the electric fair at Kantilo and submitted the required documents and paid the fees but no connection was given to his house. Due to sickness he left the hose under lock and resided with his son outside. In the year 2013 September affected by paralysis. In 2014 March when his son went to Delhi he came back to his house and contacted with electric Department for giving electric connection to his house. As per the old order the electric connection was given to his house in the month of March, 2014. In April, 2014 electric bill was given for 38 months totaling Rs.39,087/- . He approached for this discrepancy before the authority who hold that as per the record the electric line has been given to your house. He applied for billing statement and got the same in July, 2014 and came to know that the electric bill has been prepared from Sept.,2011 showing initial consumption unit as zero but in the month of October,2011 the c9onsumsption unit has been reflected as 1152 and thereafter 144 unit has been added in every month till April, 2014 showing the total amount as Rs.39,087/- for 38 months instead of 32 months. For this mistake he ;submitted a written application before OP No.1 on 01.7.2014 which as forwarded to OP No.2. As no result came out he applied second time on 17.7.2014 and the same was forwarded to OP No.2. Inspite of correcting the bill the subsequent electric bills are given including the mistake amount. In October 2014 totaling Rs.42,315.40 the electric bill was given with disconnection notice.
Though he applied for electric connection in the year 2011 but the connection was given in March 2014. The electric bill is given buy adding 144 unit every month causing mental harassment. As per OERC Rule 94(2) the License is not eligible to recover any sum due from any consumer after the period of two years from the date when sum became first due and licensee shall not cutoff the supply of the electricity as per Sec-56(2) of the Act.
Hence for the above reason the complainant has come before this Forum to redress his grievances with the prayer as mentioned earlier.
3. The OPs filed their joint written version stating the complainant is not maintainable, and further submitted the complainant had deposited Rs.200/- for service connection, Rs.242/- as security deposit and Rs.34/- as processing fees totaling Rs.476/- on 16.2.2011. The meter testing report was prepared on 09.03.2011 and electric supply was given on that date being signed by the complainant on the report. The complainant falsely submitted that power supply was not given in 2011. The OPs have supplied the consumption bill in the month of April, 2014 and Rs.39,087/- to the complainant. The averments in para-4 to para-10 of the complaint are false and fabricated. The complainant has been using the power supply but filed this complaint to get exemption from the arrear and to chit the OPs. The OPs have supplied electric compensation bill properly to the complainant but the complainant did not pay the arrear intentionally to cheat the OPs and pray the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
4. From the pleading of the parties the following issues needs for discussion to adjudicate this case.
1. Whether the electric supply was given to the complainant in the month of March, 2011 ?
2. Whether the OPs have issued the electric consumption bill to the complainant on every month from the date of electric connection ?
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get exempted from the arrear
of electric due as per Rule 94(2) of OERC Regulation ?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on th part of OPs not supplying the consumption bill on every month to the complainant ?
5. Whether the complainant is eligible to get compensation and litigation expenses from the OPs with any other relief.
5. The complainant filed evidence on affidavit and relied on the xerox copies of documents filed with the complaint. The OP No.2 filed evidence affidavit for all and relied on xerox copies of documents as per the list dated 12.01.2015.
Decisions
Issue No.1 :- The complainant in his complaint as well as in his evidence on affidavit stated that no electric supply was given in the year 2011 though he applied for electric connection and deposited the required documents and fees in Electricity Fair. In the other hand the OPs have filed the xerox copy of test report
which shows that the complainant has supplied the meter bearing Sl. No.101183 Montel 10-40A which corresponds to the electric bill of April,14. The xerox copy of ledger regarding new connection, the name of complainant appears of Sl. No.80 and the entries made from coloum No.1 to 18 shows the date of application 15.02.2011, submission of documents and fees, date of issue of test report 22.02.2011, date of receipt of test report from the complainant 01.03.2011 , date of notice to the complainant 03.03.2011 and date of power supply 09.03.2011 reflected with meter No. Montel Sl No.101183 supplies by party with consumer lNo.D14E610. The xerox copy of consumer billing statement shows the old code No.D14E610 has been converted to consumer Account No.04182895 which corresponds to electric bill of April, 2014.
The law is well settled that the witness may lie but the documents never lies. Though the complainant states no connection was given to his house in 2011 as he went outside by locking it bur no such document is filed for his absence in the house on that period. The documents such las meter testing report and new connection ledger clearly shows the electric supply was given to the house of the complaisant on 09.3.2011. The complainant never says when he left his house under lock. So it is clear that the electric supply was given to his house on 09.03.2011.
Issue No.2 & 4 :- As per Rule 90 of OERC Regulation the electric charges payable by the consumer shall be billed on prorata monthly basis indicating the
period. As per Rule 89 (1) the electric bills must be despatched within ten days from the end of billing cycle and record of such despatch are duly mentioned. The complainant stated he has not received any electric bill from the OPs except in the month of April, 2014 (first bill). The Ld. Advocate for the OPs in his written argument though stated at para-4 that the OPs have been supplying the consumption bill regularly but to this effect filed no such proof of despatch of electric bill to the complainant. The OPs in their written version as well as in the evidence on affidavit have admitted that the consumption bill was supplied in the month of April, 2014 for Rs.39,087/- to the complainant. Therefore it is crystal clear that no consumption bill was supplied to the complainant periodically from its date of connection which is a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
Issue No.3 :- The complainant in his complaint as well as in the evidence on affidavit has submitted that as per Rule 94 (2) of OERC Regulation the licensee shall not be eligible to recover any sum due from any consumer after the period of two years from the date when such sum become first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable las arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity, as per provisions laid down under section 56 (2) of the Act. The complainant relied on a decision reported in 2008(2) CPR 318(NC) BSES Yamuna Power Ltd Vs Smt. Damyanti Gupta which is similar to the present case. So on reference to Rule 94 (2) the electricity authority only can recover the electricity dues preceding two
years from April,2014 (the first bill) i.e from the month of May, 2012 and the electric bill of the month of April,2014 needs to be quashed and revised.
Issue No.5 :- Since the OPs have violated the rules not supplying the electric bills to the complainant regularly they are found deficiency in their service and caused mental agony on the complainant for which the complainant should be compensated for harassment and for litigation cost. Hence we order ;
ORDER
The complaint is allowed on contest with cost. The electric bill of April,2014 is hereby stands quashed and the OPs are directed to prepare fresh electric bill w. e. f May, 2012 till April, 2014 on average bills of 144 units per month and thereafter as per the actual reading of the meter within one month from the date of this order. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.7000/-(Seven thousand)only and litigation cost of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand) only to the complainant which to be adjusted in the fresh bill.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 03rd February, 2015.
