Shri A.K.Patra, President:

1. This Consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of Ops for their negligence of issue of regular bill towards consumption of electricity and more specifically  aggrieved upon the electricity bill dt 23/06/2023  threatening  disconnection of electricity to the  resident of the complainant.
2. Complainant seeks for a declaration that, (i) the arrear charges under bill No. 903230623000013M6741 and bill No. 903230623000014M2402 both dt.23/06/2023 are   inflated &  illegal need to be revised with correct calculation, (ii) for an  order directing the O.Ps to verify and re-calculate the arrear dues of demand correctly in presence of the complainant with  respect to said two consumer Nos.903511130447 and 903511130352 and (iii) for an order to issue periodical bill or monthly regularly to the complainant after taking reading of the meter,(iv) for a declaration that, notice of disconnection of power supply to the house of the complainant is illegal and beyond the authority of the OP being barred of limitation under the provision of Electricity Act 2003 and (v)  further prayed for an order to pay Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony & litigation cost.
3. The facts in brief as stated in the complaint petition & emerged from the documents available there on the records are that, the complainant has availed  two electricit  connection to his resident for domestic purpose vide consumer No.903511130447 and 903511130352 respectively. He has shown his interest always to pay the charges to the OP for consumption of electricity .It is alleged that, the OP has never issued electricity bill on time or in specified period as prescribed for which the complainant face a lot of hardship to pay the huge electrical bill at a time as demanded by the OP. It is further alleged that, the OP has issued bills irregularly directing the complainant to pay the entire bill amount at a time caused financial burden to the complainant. The staff or meter reader from the office of the OP never used to visit the house of the complaint to take reading of meter monthly or on any specific period. The last bills issued for an amount of Rs 2,35,974/-on dt 23/06/2023 vide bill bill No. 903230623000013M6741 and bill No. 903230623000014M2402 on 23/06/2023  demanding huge arrears are inflated & incorrect ,illegal not binding to the complainant .The complainant is in no way liable to pay such a huge arrear bill to the OP. The complainant approached the OP for correction of the said inflated bill but it was not responded though admitted their irregularities & fault in issuing of electricity bill to the complainant and offered OTS for settlement of the bill. Accordingly   the complainant under protest paid Rs.20,000/-on 13/04/2023 and Rs.13,123/- on 02/05/2023 against consumer no. 903511130447 and further paid Rs.20,000/- on 13/04/2023 against consumer no. 903511130352 with much hardship & under protest. It is further alleged that, the OTS was not consumer friendly and not justifiable. The complainant has quoted the provision of section 56(2) of Electricity Act 2003 and claimed exemption from payment of arrears there raised after two years of first due of the bill and further alleged unfair trade practice on the part of OP  for issuing of notice threading  disconnection of electricity to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
4. The complainant, to substantiate his claim has filed true photo copy of bill No. 903230623000013M6741 dt.23/06/2023 and bill No. 903230623000014M2402 dt.23/06/2023 as Annexure 1 & 2 respectively of his complaint petition .The averment of the complaint petition is supported by an affidavit of the complainant
5. On being notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their learned counsel Sri.N.R.Mishra and filed their written version denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars, however, it is not disputed that, the complainant is a consumer of electricity being supplied by O.Ps for domestic purpose. It is stated that, there is no allegation regarding denial of service or quantity or quality of service. This complaint does not come under the definition of Consumer Complainant.  More so the complainant always wants to avail electricity service free at the cost of other innocent consumers. The fact that, the agent of O.Ps never visits the premises of the complaint is denied.  It is submitted that, Op has been issuing bill regularly to the consumer as per meter reading but the complainant has never shown his interest to pay the dues. It is further submits that,  in case of none received of bill, the complainant is duty bound to pay the bill by collecting duplicate bill from the OP in terms of section 151(xi) of the prevailing regulation. Further submits that, if previous bill is disputed than the complainant is duty bound to pay current bill but he has never been come forward to pay the current bill regularly and enjoying electricity without paying bill clearly shows that, the complainant is not in clean hand as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed . There is no illegality or irregularities or any  fault in issuing of alleged two electricity bill to the complainant as those bill were issued taking proper meter reading in presence of the complainant and that ,there is no occasions for the complainant to rush the office of the OP seeking any clarification and that, there is  no dispute over the alleged  bill as the same has been prepared with due adjustment of earlier provisional bills & on the basis of actual meter reading available there in the meter install in the premises of the complainant and that, there is no scope of revision of the alleged bill as the arrear accrued against the complainant is legal, justified, prepared as per actual meter reading of consumption of electricity is rightly recoverable. The complainant has availed OTP but not performed the agreed obligation. It is further contended that, the complainant had previously filed a complainant before this Commission challenging subject arrear bill which was dismiss with an observation that, “the complainant was remaining absent consistently” which   the complainant has deliberately suppressed as such  he is not  entitled for any relief as claimed in this subsequent complainant. The complaint is not entitled to get any relief as he claimed rather, the complaint has no locus stands to file this complaint and it is only to avoid paying of electricity due he has filled this case without any proper grounds .As such this complaint is to be rejected with cost and a direction may be issued to the complainant to pay the arrear as well as regular electric bill to the OP.
6. Heard. Perused the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the contention of the respective parties & submission of their learned counsel.
7. During hearing of this case the complainant Bijaya Kumar Patra has filed his additional affidavit evidence as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019 to substantiate his claim, the contention of which are corroborating with the averment of the complaint petition is taken in to consideration. 
8. The Opposite party to substantiate his claim has filed the evidence affidavit of one Sri.    Rajesh Kumar Mishra, SDO,(Electrical) No.1 TPWODL ,Bhawanipatna, the contention of which are corroborating with the averment of their written version is taken in to consideration. 
9. Here in this complainant the facts that, the complainant is a consumer of electricity being supplied by the Ops for consideration and that, service is availed  only for domestic purpose is not disputed. It is also not disputed that, the complainant has been consuming electricity being supplied by O.Ps rather it is contended that, he suffered financial burden to pay such a huge arrear bills at a time .Complainant has alleged negligence on issuing of regular bill to him.  It is submitted that, O.Ps is duty bound to serve bill to the consumer every month or in   every two month as prescribed and that, the Op is not entitled to raise any arrear bill after two years of its “first due” even though the liability to pay may arise on the consumption of electricity.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that, law is well settle that, any sum due from any consumer shall not be recoverable after a period of 2(two) years from the date when   such sum became” first due” unless such sum being shown continuously as recoverable arrear of charges of electricity supply and the license shall not disconnect supply of electricity the ground of nonpayment of such past arrears. Nothing material is placed on record to ascertain the date of “first due” of the bill there against the complainant for consumption of electricity.
11.  No cogent evidence is adduced by the Op to hold that, the OP has been issuing bill against  consumption of electricity & have served it to the complainant regularly and that, the consumer/complainant has never shown his interest to pay dues. No evidence is there placed on the record to hold that, the ops have ever tried to procure the presence of the consumer/complainant for taking meter reading installed there in the residence of the complainant. The Op failed to prove that, bill showing arrear since the date of its “first due” was served regularly to the complainant before issue of alleged two bill dt 23/06/2023 certainly established negligence & deficient service there on the part of the Op.
12. The complainant has proved on affidavit that, he was not served with regular bill for consumption of electricity remain un-rebutted and that, he has received those two bill on 23/06/2023 at once for an amount of Rs 2,35,974/- vide  bill No. 903230623000013M6741 & for an amount of Rs211633/- vide  bill No. 903230623000014M2402  for payment of  huge arrears to the op certainly caused financial burden &  hardship  which mental agony to the complainant cannot be denied .
13. Learned counsel for the Op submits that, the complainant had previously filed a complainant before this Commission challenging subject arrear bill which was dismissed by this Commission with an observation that, “the complainant was remaining absent consistently” is deliberately suppressed by the complainant as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed in this subsequent complainant. But nothing material or cogent evidence is placed on record to hold that, the complainant had earlier filed any consumer complainant before this Commission against the Op on the same cause of action  for same relief and that was decided on merits as such, said submission of the  Op is not acceptable .
14. On perusal of the alleged two number of bill dt 23/06/2023 placed on the record it is found that, subject  bills are prepared on the basis of actual meter reading which is not disputed by the parties. Nothing pleaded or proved that, meter is malfunctioning so also it is not disputed that, the complainant has been enjoying uninterrupted electricity being supplied by the OP with a  promise to pay for it. Accordingly, this Commission is of the opinion that, it is the duty of a prudent consumer to ask the O.P for bill , if bill for consumption of electricity is not received him on time, and he should volunteer to pay after receiving a bill from the Ops. The complainant is also duty bound to pay the bill by collecting duplicate bill from the OP in terms of the prevailing regulation. This Commission further hold that, complainant is duty bound to pay current bill but no cogent evidence is placed on the record to hold that, the complainant has been paying the current bill regularly and enjoying electricity without paying bill to the service provider/OP clearly shows that, the complainant is not in clean hand.
15.  Learned counsel for the Op has rightly cited the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India passed in Mr.Bijaya Kumar Patra vrs Kerala State Electricity Board & Other which we may reproduce here that:- ”the duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the 2003 Act is not absolute and is subject to charge and compliances stipulated by the Electric Utilities as part of the application for supply of electricity”. Law is well settled that, a person should not be allowed to unjustly enrich himself as such this Commission is of the opinion that, the complainant is to pay the subject bill dt 23/06/2023 however it may be in easy installment.
16. Based on above discussion,  we are of the opinion that ,the Ops are neglecting to issuing regular bill for consumption of electricity to the complainant and have issued bill dt.23/06/2023 demanding huge arrears with a  threaten of  disconnection of the electric supply to the  premises of the complainant which proved unfair trade practice and  deficient service on the part of ops towards the complainant certainly  caused financial hardship & mental agony as such complainant is entitled for compensation along with  cost of this litigation. However the claim of the complainant is at higher side hence allowed in part with following direction:-

ORDER

The Opposite Party is directed to take meter reading of the complainant regularly & to issue bill for consumption of electricity regularly as prescribed under reveling regulation to the complainant for consumption of electricity and to pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for suffering /mental agony caused due to their unfair trade practice & deficient service and further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

The Opposite Party  is further   directed  to make compliance of the aforesaid Order within  four weeks  from the  date of  receipt  of this  order falling which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 100/- per day to the complainant till compliance of this order . Pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

        Dictated and corrected by me.

                   President

I   agree.

                 Member    

           Pronounced in open Commission today on this  12 June 2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission. Pending application if any is disposed off accordingly .This complaint could not be decided on time in want of quorum of this Commission. 

  The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet  to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission