State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Assistant Electrical Engineer & Ors vs Naresh Prasad Singh on 7 December, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
Appeal No.llS of 2023
1. Assistant Electrical Engineer-Cum-S.D.O. Electric Supply Sub-
Division, Samastipur.
2. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division,
Sahari-2 Samastipur.
3. Superintending Electrical Engineer Electric Supply Sub-Division,
Shrikrishanapurl, Samastipur.
------------------------------Appella nt/Opposite parties
versus
Naresh Prasad Singh, S/O- Late Baidyanath Prasad Singh,
Resident of Moh.- Tajpur Road, Ward NoA, Town, P.s.-
Samastipur, P.O.- Samastipur, District- Samastipur.
------------------------------- Respondent/ Complainant
Learned Counsel for the Appellant :- Mr. Ajay Kumar Gautam
Learned Counsel for the Respondent:- None
Before,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar J, President
Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member
ORDER
Per:Md. Shamim Akhtar (Member) Dated-07.12.2023
1. The appellant have filed the appeal against the order dated 03.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Sarnastipur in Case no.163 of 2012 whereby and where under the appellants have been directed to correct the bill of the complainant after deducting the DPS amount of Rs.5,972/- and also to pay Rs.l0,OOO/- as physical and mental compensation and also to pay Rs.l0,OOO/-as cost of the litigation to the complainant within 60 days from the date of the order and in failure the whole sum will be paid with interest @10% p.a. from the date of the ,order.
2. The case of the respondent-complainant in brief is that he is a bonafide consumer of electricity and has been regularly paying the bill. Further case is that the respondent-complainant got bill of October 2010 2 in which present reading was shown as 5374 and past reading was shown as 3254 and the units consumed was shown as 2120 and a total bill of RsA160/- was sent and after receiving the bill an application dated 21.01.2011 was filed before the opposite party no.1 (Appellant no.L) for correction of bill as in the bill of October 2007 present reading was shown as 3254 which was carried up to the bill of October 2010 and during this period the respondent -complainant was charged an average reading of 40 units per month and it was paid to the Electricity Deptt. But that amount was not adjusted in total reading 2120 unit consumer as per reading shown in the bill. Further case is that the respondent - cornplainant : filed petition dated 29.04.2011 before the opposite party no.2 (Appellant no.2) for correction of the bill remitting the DPS but the bill was not corrected. Again on 29.04.2012 the respondent complainant filed petition before the Superintendent Engineer (opposite party no.3) but even then correction of bill not made. The respondent- complainant also filed application dated 21.01.2012 under Right to information Act before the opposite party no.3 (Appellant no.3) to know the fate of his applications but no correction was made. Further case is that the bill of the month of July 2012 dated 15.08.2012 due date 30.08.2012 is for Rs. 54,777/- which is also apparently incorrect in which past reading has been shown as ~80 on 30.06.2012 and present reading shown as 8320 on 31.07.2012 and unit consumed shown is 7440 and thus the Electricity Deptt. did not pay any heed to correct the bill and the respondent - complainant suffered mental agony and harassment. Prayer was made to direct the authorities of the Electricity Deptt. to furnish corrected bill remitting the DPSand to award damage for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost.
3. Upon notice the opposite party no.1 (Application no.1) appeared and filed this written statement dated 02.03.2016 in which he mainly stated that the present case is time barred and at page noA he admitted that due to the fault of the computer the average units charged was not adjusted and at para nO.7 of the written statement he has stated that the 'correction of the bill is in process and the bill, will, be corrected after adjustment of MMC.
In his subsequent written statement filed the opposite party nO.1 (Appellant no.I) stated that from the perusal of the statement of 3 account it is clear that the meter reading was not done due to shortage of staff and bill served to the complainant as minimum 40 units per month and from the perusal of the statement of account from 8/2005 to 9/2010 showing consumption zero and the bill was charged minimum 40 units and the meter was in running condition.
4. After hearing the parties the learned District Consumer Forum, Samastipur passed the impugned order. In which it has been held that the opposite parties (Appellant) have filed corrected bill on 31.07.2017 which was accepted by the complainant but he has opposed the addition of DP. It has also been held in the impugned order that the opposite parties charged Rs.14,769/- as DPSCharge which was corrected as Rs.5,972/-. It is also held in the impugned order that the opposite parties have made irregularities in the bill and as such they are not entitled for charging DPS and passed order accordingly.
5. We have heard the Learned counsel for the appellants on the point of admission. We have also gone through the impugned order including the records. After perusal, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to have a different opinion. The present appeal appears to have been filed only for the sake of filing the appeal. Admitting the appeal and to follow the procedure thereafter appears to be the abuse of the process of law.
6. In result, the appeal is not admitted for hearing and is dismissed at the admission stageitself,
7. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the c.P. Act 2019 and also to be sent to the learned District Commission by way of proper mode of service. Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the State Commission.
8. Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.