State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Superintending Engineer, Electrical ... vs Sunam Patra Biswashi on 19 June, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK
FIRST APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2008
(From an order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the District Forum,
Koraput at Jeypore in C.D. Case No. 72 of 2007)
1. Superintending Engineer, Electrical,
SOUTHCO, Jeypore, Dist - Koraput
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Electrical,
SOUTHCO, Koraput
3. Executive Engineer, Electrical,
SOUTHCO, Jeypore, Dist - Koraput
... Appellants
Vrs.
Sunam Patra Biswashi,
Son of Late B.Saimon,
At - Mission Compound,
Dist - Koraput
... Respondent
____________
For the appellants : Mr. S.C.Dash, Advocate
For the respondent : None
_____________
P R E S E N T:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY J, PRESIDENT
AND
DR. SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER
2
DATED THE 19th JUNE, 2020
ORDER
DR. SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER This appeal is directed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the "Act") against the order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the learned District Forum, Koraput in C.D. Case No. 72 of 2007.
2. Appellants representing Electricity Distribution Company, SOUTHCO were O.Ps. whereas respondent was complainant before the District Forum below. Hereinafter the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is a consumer of electricity under the OPs. It is alleged inter alia that in August, 2003 complainant alleged before the OPs that the meter was defective and new meter was affixed by replacing old one. Thereafter, no bill was issued for a period of six months. On a legal notice issued by the 3 complainant through his advocate a new meter was purchased by the complainant and handed over to the S.D.O., Electrical for replacement and correct reading of the meter. Even if OP No.2 is in possession of the new meter but the same has not been installed as a result of which the energy bills raised have become defective. Since the new meter has not been installed in spite of approach by the complainant, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. So the complaint is filed.
4. The OPs filed written version stating that due to non- functioning of the meter the complainant was required to pay the average bill from August, 2003 to July, 2004. Subsequently, on the request of the complainant a meter was affixed and actual consumption bill was raised from August, 2004. Again another meter was fixed in August, 2005. It is the further case of the OPs that no new meter was handed over to the S.D.O., Electrical for installation as alleged by the complainant. When the demand notice is served on the complainant, the 4 complainant filed such false complaint before the District Forum.
5. After hearing the parties learned District Forum ordered as follows:-
"Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OPs being jointly and severally liable are directed:
a) to instal the new meter of the complainant in his house in place of defective one.
b) to observe and obtain the meter reading of the said meter (purchased by the compt.) for two months from the date of installation.
c) to revise the bills from 8/2003 and issue fresh bills basing upon meter reading after deducting the payment already made by the complainant during that period.
d) to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
The above directions are to be complied by the OPs within 30 days from the date of despatch of this order failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment."
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order O.Ps. filed the present appeal on the ground that the consumer has never 5 complained with regard to replacement of meter. Bills are issued on the basis of meter reading and the meter fixed in his premises is functioning properly. Due to non payment of arrear dues, there is huge amount of outstanding against the consumer. He has filed the complaint with malafide intention and order passed by learned District Forum is not sustainable. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.
7. Heard Mr. S. C. Dash, learned counsel for appellants. None appeared on behalf of respondent on call.
8. Perused the impugned order, District Forum record along with materials available on record.
9. Admittedly, respondent is a consumer under the appellants Company and availing power supply. It was alleged that appellants did not install the new meter purchased by him in his premises.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and examining the documents adduced by complainant it has come 6 to light that the date of purchase receipt of the meter is 22.3.2006 whereas the meter testing report of a new meter is 27.2.2006. This implies that the evidence adduced is a false one. It is an afterthought of respondent to file a complaint against appellants. At the same time, OPs refused to have received any new meter from the complainant.
11. Further it is seen that the bills issued to respondent are based on actual reading of a meter. It is clearly evident from the bills that the status of the meter is O.K. The question of installation of a new meter does not arise. The allegation of complainant is thus not proved by him. It is clear from the bills that when there was a disconnection notice served on him for non payment of arrear dues, he filed a complaint against the appellants. At the same time, respondent has proved that there is no deficiency of service on their part.
12. In view of the above observations, we are of considered opinion that learned District Forum has palpably gone wrong in 7 allowing the complaint which is liable to be set aside and we do so.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Free copy of this order be supplied to both the parties. DFR be sent back forthwith.
...............................
(Dr.D.P.Choudhury, J President ......................
(Dr.S.Mohanty) Member Cuttack Dt. 19.6.2020