DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.1 of 2014
Dillip Purohit, S/o. Late Satyanarayan Purohit, aged about 40 years, Occupation – Cultivation, R/o. Village Sindiriabahal, P.O. Nakdein, P.S. Ullunda, District – Subarnapur.
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. Western Electricity Supply Company of Odisha Ltd., represented through the Executive Engineer, (Electrical) WESCO Ltd., Sonepur Electrical Division, Sonepur Near Samleswari Temple, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur
2. The S.D.O. (Electrical) WESCO Ltd., Birmaharajpur Electrical Sub-Division, P.O./P.S. Birmaharajpur, District – Subarnapur
3. Chittaranjan Putel, Section Officer (Electrical) WESCO Ltd., Ullunda Electrical Section, P.O./P.S. Ullunda, District – Subarnapur
4. Krushna Chandra Patra, Line Man under Section Officer (Electrical) WESCO Ltd., Ullunda Electrical Section, P.O./P.S. Ullunda, District - Subarnapur
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for Complainant ………. Sri B.B.Bidyadhar
Advocate for the O.Ps. ………. Sri B.K.Bishi
Present
Sri S.C.Nayak, President
Sri H.Pradhan, Male Member
Date of Judgment Dt.26.12.2016
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps officials of WESCO.
The case of the complainant is that he is consumer of electricity appertaining to consumer No.91529060058 and the said electric connection has been installed in his residential house in the name of his father.
It is the case of the complainant that O.P. No.2 and 3 are directly responsible for rendering consumer service to all the consumers of electricity of Ullunda P.S. of Subarnapur District. O.P. No.4 is the Line Man working under them.
It is alleged that the complainant is a poor man and the irregularity in the payment of electricity dues is due to adverse financial condition and never intentional.
It is alleged that in the absence of the complainant on 26.9.2013 the O.P. No.3 and 4 entered into the house of the complainant and demanded bribe, when the complainant’s wife refused to pay bribe of Rs.2000/- they disconnected the line from the house of the complainant. It is alleged that 15 days mandatory notice has not been given in this case.
-: 2 :-
It is alleged that after hearing about the disconnection of said electricity supply the complainant went to the office of O.P. No.3 and offered Rs.2000/- towards arrear electricity dues. But the O.P. No.3 and 4 refused to accept the same. They also refused to restore electric connection unless the bribe amount is paid. The matter was reported to O.P. No.1 and 2 but they have not taken any action. It is also alleged that other consumers of Ullunda Electrical Section having more arrears of electricity dues are availing electricity service by giving bribe to the O.Ps.
The complainant also alleged that the arrear electricity dues as claimed by the O.Ps. preceding to the last two years from the aforesaid date of disconnection cannot be legally recovered from the complainant due to afflux of time.
The complainant avers that he has suffered loss due to disconnection of electricity to his house. Therefore he prays that power supply should be restored to his house after receiving payment of Rs.5000/- against arrear of electricity dues arrear electricity dues preceding to last two years from the date of disconnection be waived . Compensation of Rs.95,000/- be paid to him.
The O.Ps. have filed version in this case. According to them the complainant has no cause of action for filing this complaint petition, which is not maintainable. According to them, the complainant is a chronic defaulter of electricity dues. They also deny that the O.P. No.3 and 4 entered the residential house of the complainant and demanded bribe. It is also denied that disconnection has been made without giving 15 days notice.
It is their case that on 26.1.2013 at about 1.30 P.M. disconnection was made, after serving notice No.49/dt.7.9.2013 of S.D.O., Electrical B.M.Pur. The complainant has signed on the acknowledgement without objection. The complainant was served notice through O.P. No.4 U/s.56(1) of Electricity Act, but he refused to receive the same. It is alleged by them that the complainant being a defaulting consumer has not paid the outstanding dues of Rs.33,548/- As per the said notice the last date of payment was 20.9.2013. So at last electric supply was disconnected as the complainant failed to pay the dues.
It is their case that they have never demanded any bribe . Disconnection has been done after serving of prior notice. The outstanding dues can be legally recoverable. They have not committed any deficiency of service. The complainant is enjoying electricity service and line has been restored as per order of this Forum on 3.3.2014. So the complainant is obliged to pay the outstanding dues. The O.Ps. alleged that they have not committed any deficiency of service. So they pray to dismiss the complaint case with exemplary cost.
-: 3 :-
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. From the pleadings of the parties, submissions of learned counsels during hearing the following issues are required to be adjudicated by the Forum.
1. Can the arrear electricity dues be legally recovered from the complainant ?
2. Has notice been served on the complainant prior to the date of disconnection ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
It is pleaded by the learned counsel for the complainant that the arrear electricity dues cannot be recovered from the complainant due to afflux of time. The complainant has filed only two bills i.e. for the period from December 2012 to March 2013. Upon perusal of the bills we find that the arrear electricity dues has been reflected on the bills. The complainant has not filed any other bills. So we are inclined to believe that arrear electricity dues was being regularly mentioned on the bills supplied to the complainant.
It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd. Vrs. Krishna and reported in 2014 (3) C.L.T. 545 that normal law of limitation is not applicable for recovery of electricity dues. Electricity is not merely a commercial commodity but a national energy resource. In the case cited Supra the consumer was directed to pay his arrear electricity dues of 10 years.
For the reasons stated Supra we are of the considered opinion that the arrear electricity dues can be legally recovered from the complainant.
Issue No.2 and 3 are taken together for adjudication as they are inter related.
The complainant allege that prior disconnection notice has not been served on him. O.Ps. allege that disconnection notice No.49 dt.7.9.2013 has been served on the complainant by the line man, but the complainant refused to accept the same. Further, the information supplied by the P.I.O. Sonepur electrical division reveals that as the complainant refused to accept the notice it was pasted in front of his door. Affidavit evidence of the line man who served the disconnection notice has not been filed by the O.Ps. The O.Ps. have not filed the affidavit of the persons in whose presence the notice was pasted in front of his door.
We have perused the copy of disconnection notice No.49 dt.7.9.2013. Although the notice reveals that it has been issued by WESCO, it does not contain the name of the office or officer by whom the notice was issued. It also does not contain any endorsement to the effect that the consumer/complainant refused to accept the notice. So service of this notice on the complainant
-: 4 :-
is shrouded in mystery. Even if it is accepted that this notice was served on the complainant, the date of notice was 7.9.2013 and the complainant was directed to make payment by 20.9.2013. So 15 days time has not been given in this case for making payment. As a sequel to our above discussion we are of the opinion that there has been deficiency of service by the O.Ps.
But as the service of the notice is done at sub-divisional level, we make the O.Ps. No.2, 3 and 4 jointly and severally liable for the deficiency and the O.P. No.1 is freed from the liability.
Now it is to be seen to what relief the complainant is entitled. We find the complainant is a defaulter in the payment of electricity dues as he has not paid his dues regularly every month. So there has been contributory negligence from the side of the complainant and as such the O.Ps. will be proportionately liable.
Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the considered view that a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice. We direct the O.Ps. No.2, 3, and 4 to pay this amount to the complainant. We order accordingly.
Order
It is hereby ordered as follows :-
The O.Ps. No.2, 3 and 4 are directed to pay Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four thousands) only to the complainant within one month from the date of order.
Complaint is partly allowed.
Dated the 26th December 2016
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Pradhan, Sri S.C.Nayak
Male Member President
Dt.26.12.2016 Dt.26.12.2016
