ORDER

qR.D.P.CHOUDHURY Jffi The captioned complaint case rs filed u/s 17 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act' in short) read with section 12 of the Act by the cornplainant against the opposite parties seeking relief for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complatnant is that complainant is a Government of lndia enterprise, nanrely Prasar Bharati Broadcasting corporation of lndia, i.e. All lndia Radio, Bhawanipatna and is a regular consumer under the lr ,w\ opposite parties. lt is alleged inter alia that an agreement was executed between the parties on 11.5. t994. The complainant alleged that they are only using the electricity as per the transmission hours per day from All lndia Radio, Bhawanipatna and accordingly, they are availing the contract demand of 750 K.W. from 33 K.V. power supply. The opposite party did not install any meter but issued the bill on an average of 97200 units per nronth and accordingly they were collecting Rs.4.5 lakhs per month from the complainant. lt was also agreed that average of Rs.4.5 lakhs was to be paid in every month subject to adjustment after installation of the meter.

3. lt is the further case that in the month of December, 1996, the meter was installed, but it was a damaged one for which the same procedure of issuance of bill on average basis continued.

After much persuasion and protest the opposite party installed a new meter on 21,.02.2002. After the trivector meter installed, the consu mption Septem ber, 2OO2 energy from January, 2002 to 60000 units per month. The of the became ,D-l complainant alleged that the excess of consumption charges for 37200 units ( 97,200 - 60,000 ) should have been adjusted in the bill. For that the complainant wrote a letter dated 21.1A.2002 to the opposite party with a request to refund or adjust the excess amount paid from May, 1,994 to December, 2001..

4. lt is further alleged that since the complainant was provided with 11 KV/440 VHT supply with a contact demand of 160 KVA, but from the monthly bills the consumption never crr.rssed 75 KVA. ln the circumstances, the complainant on 4.10.2002 requested the WESCO authorities to reduce the contact demand from 160 KVA to 110 KVA. The complainant went on requesting the opposite party to adjust the excess amount time to time vide Annexures 4,5 and 6. The opposite party tested the meter on 25.2.2A03 and found that the meter was running slow due to alleged wrong connection by the S.D.O., MRT, WESCO, Bolangir on21..1..2002. ln such background, the opposite party in return claimed Rs. 19,46,775.9A payable by F-\ the complainant f rom 21.1,.2002 amount was claimed the opposite party 24.2.2003. ln the as arrear with a complainant paid as arrear for 13 months bill of July, 2003, this to to rebate payable at Rs. 10,00,000/- but 23,221,.62 paisa. The rebate was allowed.

5. The complainant alleged further reflected in the next bill of August, Rs.

no that balance amount was 2003. The refund of the money claimed by the complainant was not adjusted, but on the other hand, the arrear bill was issued due to wrong connection made by the opposite party-officials and as such there ls deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Not only this, but also the complainant alleged that he was getting low voltage supply to the transmitter at Belamala from September and October,2003 and as such, the programme was to