State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Debendra Panda, Aged About 51 Years, Son ... vs Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical), ... on 28 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK
STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK
C.D.
APPEAL NO.913 OF 1998
A
N D
C.D.
APPEAL NO.201 OF 1999
From an order dated 21.11.1998 passed
by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sambalpur in C.D. Case No.159
of 1998.
In C.D.A. No.913 of
1998
Debendra
Panda, aged about
51
years, son of late Durga Madhab
Panda
of Dhanupali,
P.O./Dist.
Sambalpur, at present
Working
as Bench Clerk to Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Bargarh,
At/P.O./Dist.
Bargarh
Appellant
-Versus-
1.
Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical),
GRIDCO, At/P.O.
Dhanupali,
Dist.
Sambalpur
2.
Executive Engineer (Electrical),
GRIDCO, Aianthapali,
National
High Way, Dist.
Sambalpur
3.
Superintending Engineer (Electrical),
GRIDCO, At/P.O.
Burla,
Dist. Sambalpur
...
Respondents
For
Appellant
- N o n
e
For Respondents - Mr. B.K.
Nayak & Associates
In
C.D.A. No.201 of 1999
1.
Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical),
GRIDCO, At/P.O.
Dhanupali,
Dist.
Sambalpur
2.
Executive Engineer (Electrical),
GRIDCO, Ainthapali,
National
High Way, Dist.
Sambalpur
3.
Superintending Engineer (Electrical),
GRIDCO, At/P.O.
Burla,
Dist. Sambalpur
... Appellants
-Versus-
Debendra
Panda, aged about
51
years, son of late Durga Madhab
Panda
of Dhanupali,
P.O./Dist.
Sambalpur, at present
working
as Bench Clerk to Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Bargarh,
At/P.O./Dist.
Bargarh
... Respondent
For
Appellants : Mr. B.K. Nayak & Associates
For
Respondent :
None
P
R E S E N T :
THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY,
PRESIDENT,
AND
SMT. BASANTI DEVI,
MEMBER
O R D E R DATE - The 28th December, 2009.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
Both these appeals arise out of the common order dated 21.11.1998 passed by the District Forum, Sambalpur in C.D. Case No.159 of 1998. By the impugned order, the District Forum has directed the opposite parties before it to pay a sum of Rs.300/- to the complainant as cost of litigation. Assailing the said order, the complainant has filed C.D. Appeal No.193 of 1998 with a prayer to direct the respondents-opposite parties to pay compensation, to withdraw all the bills issued to the appellant and issue fresh bills on the basis of 1 KW load factor and accept the amount in easy instalments adjusting the cost and compensation to be awarded by this Commission. On the other hand, the Departmental officials have preferred C.D. Appeal No.201 of 1999 to set aside the impugned order whereby they have been asked to pay costs to the respondent-complainant. Since both the appeals have been filed challenging the same order, they were taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Since these matters were not placed before the Bench after the year 2000, we had directed issue of notice to both parties and accordingly fresh notices were issued. On receipt of such notice, only the official appellants-respondents entered appearance, but the complainant-appellant-respondent did not appear. We have heard Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in C.D. Appeal No.201 of 1999.
3. The complainant Debendra Panda filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is stated that the complainant is a consumer of electricity under the opposite parties bearing consumer number D-10-B-126 and availed power connection to his domestic premises with 1 KW capacity on 28.03.1990. The meter was fixed after due test by the opposite parties on 15.03.1990 with a reading 00001. But, surprisingly, the opposite parties showed their record for 3 KW load capacity and raised bill against the complainant accordingly. The complainant made representations to the GRIDCO authorities on 30.06.1996 and 02.06.1997 to revise the load factor, but he was only given assurance by the opposite parties. On such assurance, he had made payment of Rs.1,000/- towards electricity dues on 08.03.1997. The further case of the complainant is that the meter reading of November, 1995 to June, 1996 was 04868, but in a subsequent bill, it was shown as 4000 and the opposite parties raised arrear bill for Rs.1,30,383.18 vide bill dated 08.03.1998 against him. According to the complainant, the opposite parties are not providing adequate service for attending to the meter and are not responding to his representations. Therefore, he filed the consumer complaint on 19.08.1998 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to withdraw their defective bills and compensate him for deficiency in service.
4. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties entered appearance through counsel and filed joint written version. According to them, the complainant availed power supply to his residential premises from the OSEB on single phase. It is admitted in the written version that originally there was an estimation of 1 KW capacity vide Estimate No.64 of 1989-90 on 25.02.1990. It is the case of the opposite parties that on the date of effecting power supply to the house of the complainant in March, 1990, the actual load was physically detected to be 3 KW and accordingly Consumer No. D-10-B-126 was assigned to the complainant. It is their further case that final bill up to March, 1997 was Rs.8,185/- and the complainant made part payment of Rs.750/- on 30.03.1994. The complainant, according to the opposite parties, was very much aware of the load factor and for that he had never raised any dispute at the time of making payment on 30.03.1994 or thereafter. It is also their case that after making part payment of Rs.750/-, the complainant again made part payment of Rs.1,000/- on 08.03.1997 and thereafter made no payment towards electricity dues. As regards the meter reading, it is stated by the opposite parties that the reading in June, 1995 was 04868 and in February, 1997, the same was 03990. According to the opposite parties, the meter is a 5-digit meter having highest reading of 99999. But the reading was found to be less at a subsequent stage. Therefore, the computer calculated the final reading by including all the 99122 units. Accordingly, bill of Rs.1,28,501.98 up to February, 1997 was raised. It has been categorically stated that wrong billing was only due to tampering with the meter by the complainant in making the final meter reading less that the previous one. But the actual computer reading was considered and the bill amount became Rs.1,30,383.18 up to December, 1997. It is further stated that a joint verification was conducted on 09.08.1998 after receipt of notice in the consumer complaint in presence of the complainant to make a study about the tampering of the seal of the meter. After such verification, the reason for such abnormal billing by the computer could be known. Thereafter, revised bill no.1207 dated 15.09.1998 for an amount of Rs.23,204.82 for the period from November, 1991 to August, 1998 was issued to the complainant taking into account the previous consumption pattern.
5. The learned District Forum, as we find on perusal of the impugned judgment, has observed that the complainant had duly received consumer card with 3 KW load capacity. This was recorded by the District Forum after examining the document like extract of the card distribution register filed by the opposite parties. It was also observed that the complainant as a consumer had received the card and duly acknowledged the receipt of the same. As such, the claim of the complainant to revise the bill bringing the load factor down to 1 KW was absolutely unacceptable. But, the District Forum found that the bill amount of Rs.1,30,383.18 against the complainant for domestic consumer was quite abnormal; that the opposite parties before issuance of such abnormal bill should have thoroughly verified the actual position, which they had not done, and which they did only after getting notice from the District Forum, and that while filing written version it is stated that there was tampering of meter by the complainant for which such abnormal amount was raised by the computer.
6. Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties-respondents-appellants submitted that when the District Forum has come to find that the actual load factor was 3 KW from the very inception and there was absolutely no payment excepting Rs.1,750/- only in two phases and the meter was found to have been tampered with by the complainant showing less reading in the meter against higher reading in the earlier month, it should not have, no surmises and conjecture, come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. No copy of the representation made by the complainant was ever filed before the learned District Forum. The complainant was a regular defaulter in the matter of payment of electricity dues and came to the District Forum in order to escape from the liability and took different pleas including the plea that right from the inception he was connected with 1KW load capacity to his domestic premises, which is totally false and he knew fully well that he was connected with 3 KW power for his domestic consumption. The District Forum has come to hold that since the opposite parties did not inspect the premises of the complainant earlier, such huge amount of bill was raised, which they subsequently revised to Rs.23,000/- and some odd, and this was done only after receipt of notice, there was deficiency on their part.
7. After hearing Mr. Nayak and going through the impugned judgment and the reason given therein to hold the opposite parties-respondents-appellants liable for deficiency in service, we are at a loss to understand as to how deficiency has been committed by the opposite parties in this matter when the complainant has suppressed the material fact, has tampered with the meter at his own sweet will and has come to challenge the bill, which he was never paying for the last 7-8 years except making payment of Rs.1,750/- on two occasions. When the facts have become quite clear and it has been held by the learned District Forum that the complainant was enjoying 3 KW power supply to his domestic premises right from the date of power connection and as we have found sufficient unrebutted materials regarding his tampering with the meter to show less consumption and the same has resulted in raising bill of more than Rs.1,00,000/-, it cannot be said that the opposite parties are deficient in providing service to the complainant.
8. In the result, therefore, we allow the appeal preferred by the opposite parties, i.e., C.D. Appeal No.201 of 1999, set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.1998 passed by the District Forum, Sambalpur in C.D. Case No.159 of 1998 and direct dismissal of the said consumer complaint. Consequently, the appeal filed by the complainant, i.e., C.D. Appeal No.913 of 1998 stands dismissed.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.
.......
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President .......
(Basanti Devi) Member SCDRC, Orissa, Cuttack December 28, 2009/S C Nayak