Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/41/2021

Damodar Pati - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.S.D.O Electrical, Dhanupali, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. A.K. Dash & associates

10 Jan 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 41/2021

 

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Damodar Pati,

S/O-Late Narayan Pati,

R/O, At/Po-Sindurpank,

Po-Sadar, Tahasil-Maneswar

Dist-Sambalpur,                                         ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

1. S.D.O Electrical, Dhanupali,

Po/Ps-Dhanupali, Dist-Sambalpur

768005.

2. Executive Engineer Electrical

Office of the Executive Engineer

General Electrical Division, Sambalpur

At-Bhutapada, Hans Nagar,

Sambalpur-768001, Odisha.                      …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Sri. A.K.Dash, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                                :-         Sri. S.K.Dora, Advocate & Associates

Date of Filing:12.08.2021,  Date of Hearing :15.11.2022,  Date of Judgement : 10.01.2023

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT,

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is having an electricity connection Consumer No. 416235020110 which is in the name of his father Narayan Pati and paying electricity bill to the O.Ps regularly. During March 2018 staff of the O.Ps visited the house of the Complainant and told about the pending huge arrears. In April 2018 the Complainant visited the Office of O.P. No.1 and asked for a statement. The staff gave a bill starting from May 2006 to February 2018 for RS. 38,843/- arrear on May 2006. In February 2016 reading showing 114121 units which alone increased the arrear by Rs. 5,83,764/-. Generally consumption of the complainant is 260 units per month. The Complainant requested the O.P. No.1 to rectify the defects. The Complainant also visited the O.P. No.2 but could not get satisfactory reply. Being aggrieved filed the complaint before the Commission.
2. The O.Ps after appearance filed the version and stated that Narayan Pati was provided with power supply with a permitted load of 1.05KW under LT/Domestic category and supply extended since the period of OSEB/GRIDCO, irregular in paying electricity bill for which the outstanding dues against the consumer till June, 2022 is Rs. 6,95,085/-. Now the Complainant is using 2.82KW load against permitted load 1.05KW as per physical verification report dated 06.08.2022. Billing disputes are not entertainable before Consumer fora and can be decided by authority under OERC (Conditions of supply) code. The complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.Ps. Death of Narayan Pati is not within the knowledge of the O.Ps. As per regulation 39 to 41 of the OERC Code, 2019 the Complainant has not taken any step to change the name of the Consumer. From April 2001 to June 2022 in only 35 occasions energy bill has been paid. As per the companies (Preservation and Disposal of Records) Rules 1996 books of accounts and vouchers for only 7 years immediately preceding the current year required to maintain. During WESCO (Predecessor of the TPWODL) computerization made. Bills are available since April 2001. The Consumer billed bi-monthly and during April-May 2001 the outstanding was Rs. 18,130.20P and prior to that no data is available. From April 2001to May 2006 the consumer has paid in two occasions Rs. 670/- in July 2002 and Rs. 540/- in May 2006. For irregular payment Rs. 38,843/- is laying outstanding up to May 2006.

Bi-monthly bill up to Sept-2011 on actual basis 259 units per month has been calculated. From Oct-2011 to Dec-2015 with the connivance with the meter reader. The meter was running accurately, the consumer was billed on provisional basis with 266 units per month without taking the actual meter reading. In Jan-Feb-2016 again the consumer was billed as per actual meter reading for 1,10,144 units, taking initial meter reading in Sept. 2011 as 3977 and final meter reading in Jan-Feb-2016 as 1,14,121 for an amount of Rs. 5,83,673/-. The unit consumption of 1,10,144 has been spreaded over last 53 months (From Oct-2011 to Dec-2015) and slab benefits in 53 months was given to consumer. The provisional billing amount during Oct-2011 to Dec-2015 for Rs. 19,751.68P was adjusted (withdrawn) from the outstanding arrear. The meter reading and ledger billing is proper.

Energy meter LW 296291 was installed in June 2019. The Consumer is using 2.82Kw load against permitted load of 1.05KW which is shown in physical verification report dated 06.08.2022.

There is no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps and accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and O.Ps. As per section 21(b) of the Electricity Act, the licence of WESCO utility was transferred to TPWODL on 01.01.2021 along with rights and liabilities. The TPWODL is committed to collect the arrears in cumulative basis till the financial year 2026. TPWODL shall contest the past/Present litigation, Suit, Claims etc. to satisfy the Regulation Commission. The Complainant has filed bill period May 2021 wherein net amount shown Rs. 6,70,088.37P. On 11.08.2021 Rs. 6000/- has been paid vide receipt No. TM52E741600048, vide receipt TM4F6841600765 Rs. 9000/- has been paid on 23.11.2020 and Rs. 5120/- on 12.10.2020 vide receipt No. TM4F3E4100114. The Complainant filed account statement for the period May 2006 to Feb. 2018. The O.Ps have filed the statement for the period April-01 to August-2021.

Basing on the documents the following issues are framed:

103606587.  

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps after the death of his father Narayan Pati?
2. Is there any deficiency  on the part of the O.Ps regarding supply of the electricity bill?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps after the death of his father Narayan Pati?

Electricity connection has been provided by the O.Ps to deceased Narayan Pati, having Consumer No. 416235020110. It was the duty of legal-heirs of deceased to inform the O.Ps after death of Narayan Pati to change the name of the Consumer. In the instant case as per Regulation 39,40 and 41 of the O.E.R.C. Distribution (Condition to Supply) code, 2019 and earlier code steps should have been taken by the family members of Narayan Pati. As a belated stage in the year 2021 only complaint was raised. The Complainant has not explained why steps could not be taken, before the O.Ps.

As per sec.2(5) (vi) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 legal heirs of the deceased consumer can file complaint against the licencee. Accordingly, the complainant is a consumer of the O.P.s.

The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2  Is there any deficiency  on the part of the O.Ps regarding supply of the electricity bill?

This consumer dispute is a year old dispute and prayer of the Complainant is to rectify the error of February, 2016 and prayed to produce the details of opening balance of arrear Rs. 38,843/-. In reply the O.Ps narrated in detail starting from April 2001 to August 2021 showing the details of payment, actual bills, provisional bills etc. Here a question arises from April-May 2001 when arrear shown Rs. 18,130.20P. Why the consumer father nor his family members did not take any step for rectification of the bill. Likewise till date period Feb-2016, when bill amounting to Rs. 5,83,673/- was given by the O.Ps the Complainant should have taken prompt step before the authority.

From June 2019 the new meter No. LW296291 has been established and as per report of the O.Ps the Complainant is using 2.82KW load in the place of permitted load of 1.05KW. The present complaint has been filed to cover the lacuna up to 2019 by the Complainant and disputing the arrear which can not be taken up by the Commission. Further there is irregularity in payment of bill from the side of Complainant.

Accordingly, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case there is no irregularity, deficiency found on the part of the O.Ps rather there is no proper timely steps have been taken by the Complainant.

                   Accordingly, the issue is answered.

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

From the supra discussion it is clear that the Complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hand and not entitled for any relief.

                   It is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed for.

The parties are to bear their own cost.

Order pronounced in open court on this 10^th January 2023.

Supply free copies to the parties.