Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/34/2019

M/s Senapati Cold storage - Complainant(s)

Versus

1- Executive Engineer,WESCo - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. Panda, A.K.Panigrahi And others

06 Dec 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 34/2019

 

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

M/S-Senapati Cold Storage,

At-Hatibari, Dist-Sambalpur

Represented through its Proprietor-Satish Kumar Senapati,

R/O- Hatibari, Ps-Jujomura,

Dist-Subarnapur-                                                                    ……..Complainant

Versus

1.Executive Engineer(Elect) WESCO

Sambalpur East Elecrrical Division (SEED),

At-Jail Chhowck, Ps-Dhanupali,

PO/Dist-Sambalpur.               

2.Sub-Divisional Officer (Elect) WESCO

Rairakhol Sub-Division (WESCO)

At/PO-Rairakhol, Dist-Sambalpur.                               …...Opp.Parties

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Sri. D.K.Bisshi & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                                 :-         Sri. S.K.Dora, & Associates

 

Date of Filing:01.07.2019,  Date of Hearing :01.11.2022,  Date of Judgement : 06.12.2022

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the complainant set up the cold storage unit and it is connected with LT Allied Agro-Industrial  purpose category Tariff having consumer No. 416001020095 and availing power supply after execution of agreement dt. 16.02.2017. The O.Ps are service providers. The Complainant availing 42KW loads and paying regular electricity bill to the O.Ps. The state Govt. not provided subsidy to cold storage owners for which they went strike due to losses of the cold storage owners.

              The O.P. No.1 issued a demand notice No. No/SEED/SBP/REV/06 dated 07.01.2019 for an amount of Rs. 2,87044.00 demanding differential bill. The base of the bill is that as per agreement the Complainant comes under “Allied Agro Industries Activities” whereas the Complainant has wrongly entered into the billing data base as “Allied Agricultural Activities (HT)” since the date of supply. The differential amount was calculated and added in monthly bill of Dec-2018. The Complainant alleged  that the differential bill received at belated stage and further escalation can not be recovered from the customers, who kept their products in the cold storage before hand. The mistake is by the O.Ps and accordingly facilities of OTS and installments should have been given by O.Ps.

              After receipt of objection the O.P. No.1 issued letter No. No/SEED/SBP/REV/642 dated 20.03.2019 and stated that the O.Ps have allowed 50% of the differential bill i.e. RS. 1,43,522/- by 31.03.2019 in addition to current bill and the Complainant has to pay rest three installments each @Rs. 47,841/- by 30.04.2019, 31.05.2019 and 30.06.2019 along with current bill. The decision of the O.Ps was one sided and without intimation to the Complainant. The O.P. No.2 ventilated the direction of O.P. No.1 that if the amount is not paid within 1^st week of July then power supply will be disconnected.

              The O.Ps action are excessive, arbitrary and biased one. Monopolistic practice of the O.Ps lower down the good will and reputation of the Complainant.

2. The O.Ps in their version submitted that the Complainant is having contract demanded of 42KW under HT/Allied Agro Industrial Activities and power supply was given on 04.04.2017 with energy meter serial No. WESS1287. The Consumer is irregular paying energy bills and an outstanding dues till July 2022 is Rs. 1,23,923/-. Biling dispute is not maintainable before this Commission. The Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined in Sec. 2(7)(i) of the C.P. Act, 2019 as energy is consumed for commercial purpose.

              The Complainant was accorded permission vide letter No. SEED/Tech-477/ dated 02.02.2016, a contract demanded of 42KW under AlliedAgro Industrial activities category. On 16.02.2017 agreement was executed and continuous power has been supplied. From April 2017 to Nov. 2018 due to wrong entry of the consumer tariff category in the billing data base, recalculation was made in Nov 2018 and intimated vide letter dated 07.01.2019 and requested to pay Rs. 2,87,044/- with current bill for Dec-2018. The Complainant filed the grievance dated 06.03.2019 disputing the belated recalculation and requested for OTS in installments. After considering the grievance the O.P. No.1 issued letter dated 20.03.2019. The mistake of billing for the period April 2017 to Nov. 2018 was intimated before hand the request for payment of Rs. 2,87,044. The O.Ps allowed payment in installments. There is no any deficiency in service of the O.Ps and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and O.Ps permission was granted for contract demand 42KW under L.T. Allied Agro Industrial category vide letter dated 02.02.2016 to the Complainant. Agreement between the parties made on 16.02.2017 under L.T. General Industrial Category purpose. The Complainant agreed to pay under L.T. Allied Agro Industrial Purpose category Tariff. Demand notice dated 07.01.2019 was given by the O.Ps admitting the wrong entry in billing data base as Allied Agricultural Activities (HT) instead of Allied Agro Industrial Activities(HT) calculating differential amount as Rs. 2,87,044/- in addition to bill for Dec-2018. The Complainant objected to the bill on 06.03.2019. Vide letter dated 20.03.2019 the O.Ps granted four installments.

              Basing on the Complaint, version of the O.Ps and documents filed the following issues are framed.

                                      ISSUES

1. Whether the Complainant M/S Senapati Cold storage represented through its proprietor does not come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ of the O.Ps as per Sec. 2(7) of the C.P. Act, 2019?
2. Whether wrong billing made by the O.Ps amounts to deficiency in service?
3. What relief the complaint is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Whether the Complainant M/S Senapati Cold storage represented through its proprietor does not come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ of the O.Ps as per Sec. 2(7) of the C.P. Act, 2019?

              The Complainant in his complaint categorically submitted that for ‘livelihood the cold storage is managed and under Govt. sponsored programme the business is run by the Complainant. The O.Ps agitated the question of “Commercial purpose” exclusion clause of sec. 2 (7)(a) of the consumer Protection Act, 2019. As an unemployed youth influenced with promotional scheme of the State Govt. for ‘livelihood’ the cold storage has been established for self employment. Accordingly, the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the O.Ps although the activities in the cold storage are commercial in nature.

The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2 Whether wrong billing made by the O.Ps amounts to deficiency in service?

              It is the admission of both the parties that for the period April 2017 to November 2018 wrong billing has been made. The O.Ps stated that wrong entry has been made into the billing data base as “Allied Agricultural Activities(HT)’ in place of ‘Allied Agro Industrial activities.” The tariff for allied Agricultural Activities is Re 1.50 per unit whereas for Allied Agro Industries Activities the tariff rate is Rs. 4.10P per unit. The O.P.s on 07.01.2019 vide letter No. 06 intimated the Complainant and recalculating the tariff demanded Rs. 2,87,044/- from the Complainant. The Complainant in his objection dated 06.03.2019 opted for OTS and sufficient numbers of installments facilities. The O.Ps allowed four numbers of installments vide letter No. 642 dated 20.03.2019.

              From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the O.Ps have given an opportunity to the Complainant for their bonafide mistake. As the Agreement dated 16.02.2017 is for ‘Allied Agro Industrial Category’, the demand made by the O.Ps is proper and there is no deficiency in service of O.Ps.

              Accordingly, issue is answered.

Issue No.3 What relief the complaint is entitled to get?

              From the Supra discussion it is clear that the mistake committed by the O.Ps is a bonafide mistake and accordingly, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief sort for. It is ordered:

 

 

ORDER

              The Complaint is dismissed on contest against the OPs. The parties are to bear their own cost.

                        Order pronounced in open court on this 6^th  day of Dec 2022.

          Supply free copies to the parties.