SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency-in-service against the Ops, who are the Electrical Authorities.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant has been availing the power supply from the Ops since the time of his deceased father as a domestic consumer vide old consumer No.IBD-11697 corresponding to new A/c No.324203010065. He has been paying the electric dues regularly. It was found from the Bills for the month of February, April, May, June and July, 2021 that an amount around Rs.2,600/- outstanding against him. So, he paid Rs.3,000/- on 29.9.2021 and cleared all the outstanding dues against him and obtained receipt. But on 21.10.2021, the complainant received an electric bill of September, 2021 amounting to Rs.340.83 paisa for consumption of 71 units along with arrear amount of Rs.32,831.61 paisa. In the local area, the electric transformer installed by the Ops was burnt and for the purpose the staffs of the Ops collected arrear amount from the consumers and after restoration of a new transformer power supply was resumed and in that event the Ops have denied the complainant from availing power supply unless payment of arrear amount of Rs.32,831/- shown in the bill for the month of September, 2021. He made complaint before the concerned authorities, but in vain. Thus, the complainant was deposited Rs.8,000/- on 11.11.2021. The aforesaid amount of Rs.32,831/-, as demanded by the Ops, is quite illegal so also non-supply of power to his premises. The cause of action to file the present case arose on 21.10.2021, when the Ops sent a defective electric bill. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant has relied on the following documents which are placed in the case record.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 18.3.2021.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 18.5.2021.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 19.6.2021.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 20.7.2021.
- Photocopy of Bill for the month of July, 2021.
- Photocopy of Bill dated 21.10.2021.
- Photocopy of Receipt dated 29.9.2021.
- Photocopy of Receipt dated 11.11.2021.
3. In the present case, Ops made their appearance and filed their joint version denying the averments made in the complaint. They have also challenged as to the maintainability of the case. In their version, they have stated, inter alia, that the deceased father of the complainant was the domestic consumer under them with a contract load of 1.00 KW and he was a defaulter consumer. On 22.7.2021, the verification squad made a spot visit to his premises and on verification it was detected that the consumer was availing 3.5 KW load against the contract load. It was also detected that the existing meter was a defective one and there was no seal in the meter. The complainant received the copy of SVR without acknowledgement. Thereafter, provisional assessment U/s 126 I.E. Act was prepared by the Assessing Officer and served on the consumer. As the complainant failed to file objection and remained absent on the date of hearing i.e. on 31.7.2021, final assessment order was passed amounting to Rs.32,618/-. The complainant without filing any appeal before the appellate forum has filed the case before this Commission. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this case. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
To substantiate their case, the Ops have relied on the following documents which are placed in the case record.
- Photocopy of spot verification report dated 22.7.2021.
- Photocopy of Provisional assessment order.
- Photocopy of Letter No.1112 dated 24.8.2021 in shape of final assessment order.
- Photocopy of Payment receipt dated 24.4.2022.
4. In view of the above pleading of both the parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether this consumer case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
5. In the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, before delve into the merits of the case, first of all, it is to be decided as to whether the case is maintainable or not.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the deceased father of the complainant was a consumer under the Ops and after him, the complainant has been availing the power supply as a domestic consumer vide old consumer No.IBD-11697 corresponding to new A/c No.324203010065 and he has been paying the electric dues regularly. It is further submitted that from the Bills for the month of February, April, May, June and July, 2021, it was learnt that an amount around Rs.2,600/- outstanding against him. So, he paid Rs.3,000/- on 29.9.2021 and cleared all the outstanding dues against him and obtained receipt. But on 21.10.2021, the complainant received an electric bill for the month of September, 2021 amounting to Rs.340.83 paisa for consumption of 71 units along with arrear amount of Rs.32,831.61 paisa. In the local area, the electric transformer installed by the Ops was burnt and for the purpose, the staffs of the Ops collected arrear amount from the consumers and after restoration of a new transformer, power supply was resumed and in that event the Ops have denied the complainant from availing power supply unless payment of arrear amount of Rs.32,831/- shown in the bill for the month of September, 2021. He made complaint before the concerned authorities, but in vain. Thus, the complainant was deposited Rs.8,000/- on 11.11.2021. The aforesaid amount of Rs.32,831/-, as demanded by the Ops, is quite illegal so also non-supply of power to his premises.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops submitted that on 22.7.2021, the verification squad made a spot visit to the premises of the complainant and on verification it was detected that the complainant was availing 3.5 KW load against the contract load. It was also detected that the existing meter was a defective one and there was no seal in the meter. The complainant received the copy of SVR without acknowledgement. Thereafter, provisional assessment U/s 126 I.E. Act was prepared by the Assessing Officer and served on the consumer. As the complainant failed to file objection and remained absent on the date of hearing, final assessment order was passed amounting to Rs.32,618/-. It is further submitted that the complainant without filing any appeal before the appropriate forum has filed the case before this Commission. It is further submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and pass any order against the assessment order made U/s 126 of I.E. Act.
8. From the above rival submissions advanced by both the parties, first of all, it is to be decided as to whether this Commission has jurisdiction to sit over the matter or not. On perusal of Annexure-A, the spot verification report, it is seen the Inspecting Officer has clearly mentioned that – contract demand of the consumer may be enhanced from 1 KW to 3.5 KW. At the time of verification the consumer availing the load of 3.5 KW through defective meter. Assessment may be done as per rule. It is further made out that the consumer has refused to sign in the SVR. When the consumer refused to sign in the SVR, then what is the procedure available on them to serve the SVR on the consumer and how the Ops have to prove that actually they had been to the premises of the complainant on the alleged date for inspection. The Ops have not whispered a single word that that except the squad consisting of three members and complainant, no other persons were present at the time of spot verification. In that event, it was the first and foremost duty of the squad to obtain signatures of the person present at the spot, other than those four persons, at least to prove that they had been to the premises of the complainant on the alleged date. Let it be believed that the complainant was refused to receive the spot verification report. In the above premises, the squad has failed to obtain the signature of any witness to prove that the SVR was prepared at the spot and the complainant was refused to sign on the SVR. That apart, when the complainant was refused to receive and sign on the SVR, then why the squad offered a copy of the SVR to the complainant. Thus, it is crystal clear that there was no physical spot visit made by the squad to the premises of the complainant on the alleged date and time.
9. Next coming to Annexure-B, the provisional assessment order. On perusal, it is found that although the Assessing Officer had put his initial in the place provided for it, but the date of its authentication was not mentioned nor the seal was affixed. From Col-3, it is ascertained that the order was passed on 23.7.2021, but it was omitted to say when the said order was actually sealed and signed. Further, the Ops have failed to prove that the provisional assessment order was properly served on the complainant and no document to that effect is produced. Similarly, Annexure-C is a letter dated 24.8.2021 sent to the complainant wherein it was mentioned that as the complainant has not filed objection to the provisional assessment the final assessment order was passed amounting to Rs.32,618/- under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. But the Ops have failed to produce the photocopy of final assessment order passed by the competent authority. The Ops have not uttered a single word as to whether the final assessment order was duly served on the complainant or not and in that event no document is also produced to show that the final assessment order was served on the complainant either by special messenger or through the Registered post. Moreover, as it is seen from Annexure-C with reference to Annexure-B, the final order of assessment is passed beyond the statutory period as prescribed U/s 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. In this regard, no satisfactory explanation is offered by the Ops for such delay in preparing the final order of assessment. So, it casts a doubt regarding the veracity of the Annexure-B & C.
10. Besides the above, Section 159 of the OERC (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 clearly proves that the Assessing Officer while on inspection of the premises may video graph and / or take photograph of the method of such unauthorized use or take dump report for the purpose of evidence. But in the present case, the Ops have failed to produce any videography or photographs of the method of such unauthorized avail of power supply through a defective meter having without proper seal, as stated in the SVR vide Annexure-A. That apart, in the present case, it is seen that one R. Rout, EE MRT Bls, K. Jena, JE Rupsa and D. Mallick Est LE 1 had been to the premises of the complainant on the alleged date of verification. But, the Assessing Officer has not inspected the premises of the complainant as per the provisions of the Act.
11. From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is clearly established that without visiting the premises of the complainant prepared the Annexure-A to C according to their sweet will. Further, the Ops have intentionally fabricated papers showing a case U/s 126 of I.E. Act with a view to harass the innocent consumers. This type of cases are rampant in the society now-a-days and the innocent citizens, like the complainant, are suffering a lot only due to the above edged weapon of the Ops which can be used by them as and when they desired. Not only the innocent people are running from pillar to post with their grievances of different nature against the nature, conduct and act of the Ops, but also they certainly suffers from harassment, mental agony and financial hardship.
12. From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Commission is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to be adjudged U/s 126 of I.E. Act, as alleged by the Ops and hence, this case is maintainable. Therefore, it is held that the so called proceeding U/s 126 of the I.E. Act is nothing but concocted one and all the papers under Annexure-A to C are manufactured haphazardly for the purpose of this case and the penalty amount so referred in the final assessment order is held to be illegal and thereby the complainant is not binding on the assessment amount as assessed by the Ops. Further, when the assessment U/s 126 I.E. Act is held to be illegal, there no question arises for disconnection of the power supply to the premises of the complainant. Thus, the order passed by this Commission on dated 1.12.2021 is hereby made absolute.
13. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is held to be a consumer and he has cause of action to file the case. But at the same time, it is seen that the complainant has failed to prove satisfactorily as to the manner of commission of deficiency in service by the Ops. From the above, it can safely be held that the complaint is not maintainable.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
With the above observations made earlier, the case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 24th day of September, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
