The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 38415 of 2021 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Executive Engineer (Electrical) (TPCODL), Bhubaneswar and another …..… Petitioners --------------------- Premananda Khuntia & another …..… Opp. Parties -Versus- For Petitioners : Mr. S.C. Dash, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. F.R. Mohapatra, Advocate ------------------ P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH A N D THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing & Judgment : 22.03.2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petition has been filed by the Electricity Distribution Company, i.e., TPCODL being the licencee within the meaning of Section 2 (39) of the Electricity Act, 2003 being engaged in the business for retail sale & supply of electricity to all categories of Consumers in the Central Zone of Odisha. // 2 //
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner- licencee as well as Mr. Falguni Rajguru Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 3. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for petitioner that no due certificate was issued as per final meter reading from the consumer’s premises as 51904 kwh on 11.01.2021, reflected in the bill of January, 2021, petitioner deposited the entire amount of Rs.1,08,804/- vide the money receipt dated 01.02.2021. Therefore, it is contended that the consumer cannot raise any further grievance after he has paid the demanded amount as indicated above. 4. In response, learned counsel for petitioners refers to letter dated 01.02.2021 written by the consumer addressed to the Deputy Commercial Manager of the licencee. The relevant portion of the letter as referred to by the learned counsel is reproduced herein : “In this connection, I am enclosing herewith the Cheque No.039016 of SBI amounting to Rs.1,08,804/- dated 01.02.2021 towards the payment made under protest. The cheque may kindly be acknowledged.” It is submitted that the opposite party being a responsible Government servant, after vacating the quarter, had no option than to pay the demand under coercion to get ‘no due certificate’ so that he can get further accommodation as a Government servant. Page 2 of 8 // 3 // 5. It is submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the consumer-OP.No.1 that the demand as per electric bill, more so which is of a very large amount, results in a civil consequence saddled on the consumer and the learned GRF fairly has directed testing of the meter by independent agency that would either substantiate the demand or may lead to non-sequence where the demand would be unsustainable. It is further submitted that the protest letter dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure-2 series) also gives the discretion to the petitioner to deposit the amount and then raising the grievance by testing of the meter. 6. In considered opinion of this Court, the provisions of the statute cannot be interpreted so as to give rise to a conclusion where a person aggrieved by meter reading and the demand of electricity charges, cannot have option to challenge the same. Such an interpretation would lead to an anomalous situation where the consumer goes remediless. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Mohaptra that as per Regulations-64 and 117 of OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 and 2019, the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, (OERC), Bhubaneswar in the Retail Supply Tariff (RST) order from 2005-06 onwards have clarified about charging of MMFC for below 110KVA Consumers i.e., Page 3 of 8 // 4 // “In case of installation with static meter/Meter with provision of recording demand rounded to nearest 0.5KW shall be considered as C.D. requiring no verification irrespective of agreement. Therefore, for the purpose of calculation of MMFC for the connected load below 110KVA, the above shall from the basis”. 8. It has also to be noticed that none of the forums like the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) or the Ombudsman have passed any order in favour of the consumer regarding revision of the amount rather, they have directed for testing of the meter which would prejudice no one. 9. The petitioner Distribution Company challenges the order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF), Bhubaneswar in Consumer Case No.160 of 2021 as well as order dated 06.08.2021 passed by Ombudsman-1 of Electricity, Bhubaneswar in Consumer Representation (CR) Case No.109 of 2021. The consumer complaint before the GRF was filed with the following prayer : (a) To revise the bills against MMFC since 11/2013 to 02/2021 as per Recorded Max. Demand. (b) To terminate the agreement and issue of a final bill after taking Final meter reading up to 02/2021. Page 4 of 8 // 5 // (c) To refund the Security Deposit amount with interest. (d) To refund the advance payment of Rs.1,08,804.00 on dated 01.02.2021 with interest after deducting the actual dues up to 02/2021. 10. The Distribution licencee filed their show cause before the GRF after considering the pleadings of the parties and hearing the representatives of the parties, the GRF directed as follows : “Therefore, in our considered opinion, the respondent will take the dump of the meter from the date of installation to find out the actual status of the meter reading month-wise enabling the truth to come out, whether the final meter reading taken on dated 13.01.2021 by the MRT is correct or not and whether the meter reading has ever been suppressed or not. The respondent also will take the said meter to the Central MRT Laboratory of TPCODL, or any Government approved reliable Meter Testing Laboratory of TPCODL or any Government approved reliable Meter Testing Laboratory mutually agreeable to both parties, for thorough testing of the meter to find out the accuracy of the meter & amp; it’s running status, utilizing the competence available with the present management, by bringing this issue to the knowledge of the highest authorities concerned from the respondent’s side. If it is found OK, the respondent is free to take into task the erring officials involved with such suppression of the meter reading, the to the valued organization as well as embarrassing consumers, who have been subjected to unnecessary harassment at the time of vacating his official quarters. The respondent is also free to rectify the erring officials involved with the replacement of OK meters in 12/2013 and 04/2014 licensee can change the ‘OK’ meter on the context of upgraded technology during their respective incumbency. So, the authorities of the respondents are free the complainants is claimed by him by collecting it from the erring officials or collect the dues as per regulation from the complainant as per his actual consumption recorded & amp; effect revision of his bill till 01/2021 on the basis of the facts found from an independent investigation of facts thereby causing commercial to provide compensation, if any due, losses to Page 5 of 8 // 6 // from either respondents’ own MRT Lab or any Govt. approved Lab mutually agreed to both the parties, the complainant & amp; the respondents. to non-implementation of This order shall be carried out within 15 days. If the petitioner is aggrieved with either by this order or due the Grievances Redressal Forum in time, he/she can make the representation to the Ombudsman-I Qr. No.3R-2(S), Gridco Colony, Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar within 30 days from the date of order of the Grievances Redressal Forums.” the order of 11. Thereafter by petition dated 19.07.2021 the consumer/present O.P. filed Consumer Representation Case No.109 of 2021 with the following prayer : “ (a) To take necessary steps to revise the bills of the Complainant and refund the excess deposited amount after collecting it from the erring officials as per order passed by the Ld. GRF, TPCODL, Bhubaneswar.” 12. The distribution licencee filed their show cause before the Ombudsman-1 in C.R.Case No.109 of 2021. The Ombudsman taking note of the pleadings of the parties before it, concluded by order dated 06.08.2021 that for non- compliance of the order passed by the GRF, C.R. case was filed and the order passed by the GRF was not challenged by the present petitioners. Therefore by order dated 06.08.2021, the following was directed : “The authorized representative of the petitioner- consumer is present. The opposite party-2 is also present and represents OP-1. The conciliation is taken up in terms of Regulation-6(1)(c) of Odisha Electricity (Grievance Commission Regulatory Redressal Forum & Ombudsman) Regulation 2004. Perused the case record including the order dated 26.4.2021 passed by GRF, Bhubaneswar in C.C. Case Page 6 of 8 // 7 // No.160/2021. Side by side, I also perused the prayer of the petitioner consumer. It is found to be a case for non-compliance of the aforementioned order of the GRF. So the OP-2 is directed to comply with the order dated 26.04.2021 passed by GRF, Bhubaneswar in C.C.Case No.16/2021 within a month hence failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Hon’ble OERC for redressal of his grievance in terms of the provisions of Section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Decision
With above direction to the OP, the representation of the petitioner is disposed of at the stage of conciliation.” 13. This Court finds that there is no dispute that the order passed by the GRF was never challenged by the distribution licencee. The consumer filed C.R. before the Ombudsman-1 for implementation of the order. The Ombudsman by order dated 06.08.2021 directed for implementation of the order. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed on 06.12.2021. Perusal of the order passed by the learned GRF as quoted above, goes to show that the direction is for testing of the meter by the Central MRT laboratory of licencee or any Government approved reliable Meter Testing Laboratory agreeable to both the parties. 14. In considered opinion of this Court direction for testing of meter is to the prejudice of none, inasmuch as learned GRF has not given any direction regarding the claim of the consumer-complainant or the supplier licencee. In fact since the licencee is the owner/in controller of the meter, it was for Page 7 of 8 // 8 // them to get the meter tested as directed which the licencee did not pay any heed. 15. Whether an electric meter is to be tested or not, cannot be a substantial question of law before this Court after both the statutory authorities the GRF & Ombudsman have directed and from the materials placed before this Court, it is apparent that as such there is no prohibition under law for testing of the meter to know its functioning to be correct or not. 16. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with both the orders dated 26.04.2021 passed by the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF), Bhubaneswar in Consumer Case No.160 of 2021 as well as order dated 06.08.2021 passed by Ombudsman-1 of Electricity, Bhubaneswar in Consumer Representation (CR) Case No.109 of 2021. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ...…………………… ...…………………… Biswanath Rath, J. M.S.Sahoo, J. dutta Page 8 of 8