PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 95/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Mohmmed Shamshad Alli, Aged about 52 years

S/O-Md. Kasim Ali, At-Sunapali, PO-Dhankauda,

Ps-Dhanupali, Tahl/Dist-Sambalpur-768006.                         .……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Executive Engineer, Sub Division-I,

Bhutapara, SEED, TPWODL,

2. SDO, Sub-Division-I, TPWODL,

Bhutapara, SEED Sambalpur-768001.....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-Self
2. For the O.P.s                       :-Sri. M.R.Dash Sub-Divisional Officer

Date of Filing:27.12.2022,     Date of Hearing :06.11.2023,     Date of Judgement : 08.01.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a consumer of TPWODL. The Complainant has cleared up the entire arrear dues Rs. 17,314/- dt. 28.02.2022 and another Rs. 1000/- dt. 27.11.2020. The OPs have provided electric bill in the month of September, 2022 as on 17.09.2022 was on actual amount showing an arrear of Rs. 9526/- as per meter reading as 15868. In the month of October, 2022 as on 18.10.2022, the OPs further provided a bill amounting to Rs. 1027.34p and on provisional basis having an arrear amount of Rs. 10,625/-. The OPs have not supplied any current Bill of the month of November, 2022. The Complainant made an enquiry by visiting the S.D.O Office at Bhutapara as on 24.11.2022 and during the time of making enquiry S.D.O told that an inspection was held in March, 2022 in the absence of the petitioner and a fine of near about Rs. 1,11,000/- was imposed. The OPs have not provided any inspection report regarding the fine to the petitioner and the inspection was made in absence of the petitioner. The petitioner insisted the OPs to show/provide the inspection report but the OPs neither shown the Inspection report nor supplied any copy of the same to the petitioner officially. The law is well settled that in absence of the petitioner or consumer inspection should not be initiated. It is completely an illegal act and illegal trade practice of the OPs. Further in the month of December on 19.12.2022 all on a sudden a bill was provided by the OPs showing an arrear of Rs. 1,20,710/- including the current Bill amount of Rs. 390.66p and only with meter reading of 16263 which is actual amount of bill. All any inspection has been made in March, 2022 in absence and without the knowledge of the petitioner and if any fine is imposed then, in the month of December, 2022 the bill shown Rs. 1,20,710/- in cluding the bill of April, 202, the petitioner got astonished and mentally shocked how such a huge amount is reflected on the bill of December, 2022 and it shows the complete negligence, gross blunder and illegal trade practices of the OPs. In the previous month of October, 2022 if the arrear dues was Rs. 10,625/- then how the amount raised to such a huge amount of Rs. 1,20,710/- within a period of two months which is quite impossible and it shows a gross blunder and negligence being committed by the OPs and for that the petitioner is getting harassed and severe mentally affected.
2. The written statements of the O.Ps is that the present consumer complaint challenging the assessment proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 relating to Consumer No. 4161-3210-0442 for unauthorized use/left of electricity. As per the Physical Verification Report dtd. 22.03.2022, the consumer used power unauthorizedly of a connected load of 5.2 KW against the permitted load of 1 KW, by tampering the energy meter installed in his premises by shorting the phase and neutral through a cooper wire inside the meter. For such unauthorized consumption, a Physical Verification Report was prepared at the spot in presence of the consumer as per provision of law, a copy of which has been served on the consumer at the spot. The consumer/complainant although present at the spot during inspection, refused to sign the Physical Verification report. The tampered meter was sealed in presence of the consumer as evidence and was kept as such in his premises and the same has not been replaced since the case is pending before the Ld. Commission and to preserve the evidence. Basing upon the inventory report the OP No. 2 as the Assessing Officer, assessed to the best of his judgement the liability of the consumer to pay the electricity charges for such unauthorized use of energy. Since the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place could not be ascertained the assessing officer as per provision under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, assessed the liability of the Complainant for last twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection and accordingly issued a provisional order of assessment for an amount of Rs. 1,09,191/- vide letter no. 1047/- dtd 22.03.2022 under Section 126(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further by such provisional order the consumer was asked to appear before the assessing officer on the day fixed for personal hearing and file objection, if any, against the provisional order of assessment. The consumer did not file any objection against the aforesaid provisional order. Consequently, the OP vide his letter no. 1181/dtd. 26/05/2022 issued the final order of assessment under section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for an amount of Rs. 1,09,191/- after complying all the formalities of law and requested the consumer to pay the finally assessed amount. The Complainant instead of paying the assessed amount filed the present case knowing fully aware that the case is not maintainable before this learned Commission. After verification of premises and detection of unauthorized use of electricity the consumer did not cooperate with the OPs and refused to sign the physical verification report although received the same at the spot with objection. Thereafter provisional order of assessment and final order of assessment were served to the consumer personally. Although the consumer received the order(s) but refused to acknowledge the same to avoid his liability. Later, the consumer approached the OPs to waive out the total liability but same was not allowed due to cognet evidence against him. However, in response of the request of the Complainant the OPs proposed to assess for six months instead of twelve months but the Complainant did not agree with such proposal for which settlement between the parties was failed.

ISSUES

1. Is the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Is there any deficiency of service in part of O.Ps?
3. Whether this Forum/Commission has power to deal the case of electricity Act?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps?

The Complainant is the consumer bearing consumer No. 4161-3210-0442 under the O.P No. 1 and hence the Complainant is a consumer as per the CP Act.

Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency of service in part of O.Ps?

The OPs have not followed the necessary procedure regarding the entire proceeding and not given any evidence regarding the same. Hence the O.Ps are deficient in service.

Issue No. 3 Whether this Forum/Commission has power to deal the case of electricity    Act?

As per the case law cited by Ops of U.P Power Corporation Ltd. Vrs Anis Ahmed and Batch cases, AIR 2013 (SC) 2766, para-47(ii) which says “47 (ii).  A complaint against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum”. But in this case the Complainant has filed the case and submitted against the OPs for Deficiency of service, Unfair Trade practice and Monopoly of the OPs. This commission has power to deal with the case relating to any Deficiency of service, Unfair Trade practice and Monopoly of OPs as per the CP Act.

Issue No. 4 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

From all the facts of the parties, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition from the OPs.

Accordingly the case is disposed of on contest.

                             ORDER

The OPs are directed to exempt the alleged fine amount of near about Rs. 1,11,000/- as it is illegal, Rs. 30,000/- towards deficiency in service , damages and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant. Further the Complainant is directed to pay the monthly electric bill regularly to the OPs.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 8^th day of Jan, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.