Case nº Revision Petition No. 67 of 2010 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, June 01, 2015 (case 1. Ashok Ojha Vs 1. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors., 2. S.D.O. Electrical, 3. Junior Engineer, Electrical)
| Judge | For the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad, Advocate |
| President | Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member |
| Resolution Date | June 01, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
M. Shreesha, Member
-
Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to order dated 03.12.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (for short the ''State Commission''), in First Appeal No. 264 of 2008. By its impugned order dated 03.12.2008, the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Department, Jharkhand and set aside the order dated 24.5.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamshedpur (for short the ''District Forum'') in CC No. 137 of 1999.
-
Succinctly put, the brief facts which are material to the case are: that the Complainant, Shri Ashok Kumar Ojha was paying his electricity bills regularly and he had paid `225.52 towards the bill for the month of January, 1994. He averred that he had received an exorbitant electricity bill of `11,148.95/- for the month of June, 1994, out of which, an amount of ` 10,873/- was shown as arrears. The Complainant pleaded that there were no arrears in the bill dated January, 1994 and that he had brought the same to the notice of the concerned authorities of the Electricity Department and also sent several request letters to rectify the said bill, but there was no response. Subsequent to his correspondence, once again, he received exorbitant bills without meter reading for `59,232.56/- for the month of 3/98 and `81,931.47/- for the month of 6/99. The Opposite party issued two show cause notices on 10.6.2004 and 21.7.2004 respectively. The Complainant further stated that the meter was defective prior to 1990 and had submitted that the same was informed to the Opposite Parties vide his letters dated 19.6.1995, 1.7.1995 and 19.3.1997, in which the Opposite Parties have also endorsed the receipts. In all these letters, the Complainant had requested the concerned authorities to correct the billing on the basis of average consumption as fixed by the Opposite Parties'' Department, but there was no response. Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant approached the District Forum and prayed for the following directions to the Electricity Department, i.e. to correct the bills and pay compensation and costs.
-
The Opposite Party pleaded that the bills before May 1994 were issued on an average consumption basis as the meter reader was not available. When the meter was checked in May 1994, the reading was 9302 units and the consumption was 6262 units, for which an arrear bill of `10,618.17/- was raised. Similarly, the bill for the month of July, 1995 was raised based on the meter reading of 6113 units. It was also pleaded that the connection was converted from domestic to commercial in June, 1995. A Load Inspection was done on 17.08.1994 which showed that electricity was used in Damyanti Residential School...
To continue reading
Request your trial