Date of filing:- 11/01/2017.
Date of Order:- 08/09/2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No.02 of 2017.
Sri Shyamlal Swain S/o Late Mukta Swain, aged about 55 (fifty five) years, R/o. Village- Bhalupali, Po/Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
........ ....... ....... ......... Complainant.
-V e r s u s-
The Electrical S.D.O., Section- II, WESCO, Attabira, P.s. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
WESCO, Bargarh Electrical Division, Bargarh, through the Executive Engineer, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh..... ....... ...... ......... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri R.K.Satpathy, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:- Sri K.Pradhan, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).
Dt.08/09/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P. K. Dash, Member:-
The complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief fact of the complaint described here under.
That the Complainant is a permanent resident of village Bhalupali under Attabira Police Station and is a consumer bearing No.5120-0101-0096 of Opposite Parties who are happen to be the distributor of electricity under his jurisdiction and the Complainant was having 3KW domestic load power supply since 2013. That due to non availability of LT line near the resident of Complainant, he applied for the the HT line installing 16KVA own transformer bearing own cost since August-2013.
That the Complainant feeling the shortage of electricity requested the authority of Opposite Parties to enhance the load to 6KW and was ready to pay the differential amount. The Opposite Parties then enhanced the load to 12KW and the Complainant was paying the monthly electricity bill regularly. That the complaint contends that in the mean time he was supplied with a bill of Rs.32,386/-((Rupees thirty two thousand three hundred eighty six) only as of arrear till 31st March-2016. Further the complaint contends that after receipt of the arrear electricity bill the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to take over the transformer as no other consumer was interested to take electrical supply but the Opposite Parties without doing so disconnected the supply to the premises of Complainant without prior intimation since December-2016.
Further the complaint contends that study of his college going sons and family comfort was hampered due to non supply of electricity. That disconnection without prior intimation is against the provision of law which amounts to deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant and the Complainant seeks the direction of the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to restore the electricity supply to his premises immediately for which a separate interim petition is also filed here with and for further direction to the Opposite Parties to give Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards deficiency in service and Rs 5,000/-(Rupees five thousands )only towards litigation expanse to the Complainant.
The Complainant in support of his contention relied upon the xerox copies of the following documents.
Electricity bill for the month of November-2016 with receipt.
Electricity bill for the month of December-2016.
Electricity bill for the month of October-2016.
Plan to enhance electricity load.
Representation dated 17/05/2016.
Representation dated 25/10/2016.
Bill for September, July, June, May, April, March 2016 along with payment receipts.
Being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum through their legal counsel and filed their version denying allegations of the complaint.
The Opposite Parties in their version contend that the present complaint relates to dispute as to electricity billing and change in mode of electricity so also prayer in the complaint to quash the billing amount of Rs. 32,396/-(Rupees thirty two thousand three hundred ninety six)only. Further version contend that the Opposite Parties have not violated the provision of rules and regulation as prescribed under the Electricity Act-2003 read with OERC Distribution Code, 2004 in rendering service to the Complainant for which this complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The disconnection of power supply to the premises of the Complainant is due to non payment of arrear electricity dues pending against the Complainant as on November-2016 owing to the provision of Sec. 56 of Electricity Act-2003 read with Regulation 100 of the Supply Code, 2004. Further more the version reveals that as per request of the Complainant a transformer having capacity of 16 KVA was installed which was owned by the Complainant himself. Earlier power supply of 3 KW load was supplied to the premises of the Complainant which was enhanced to 12KW later on with the consent of the Complainant and as the Complainant had been alloted dedicated transformer for his own use he was bound to bear the transformer loss charges in accordance with the provision of Regulation 91(9) of the Supply Code, 2004.
Further the Opposite Parties in their version contend that the Complainant by virtue of its letter Dt.02/11/2016 requested the Opposite Parties to allow him to hand over the 16 KVA transformer to the Opposite Parties with the terms and conditions fixed by the Opposite Parties because of his (Complainants) reluctancy to use the dedicated transformer due to levy of transformer loss and the transformer loss is a part of tariff structure fixed by the Hon'ble State Commission and also under the provision of Supply Code, 2004. Further version contend that Opposite Parties were constraint to keep the transformer with the Complainant as no new consumers were available to take supply from the said transformer. The Opposite Parties in their version have tried to appraise the Forum with the various regulatory provision of Supply Code, 2004 involved in this matter. In this context the Opposite Parties highlighted the provision of Regulation 15 of Supply Code, 2004 relating to tariff and other conditions of supply of the licensee. The version reveals that the scheme of supply if not remunerative the applicant has to bear the charges.
Further the Opposite Parties in their version contend that as per Regulation 52 of the Supply Code 2004 an inspection of the licensee's installation is made and an inventory to that effect is prepared which has to be signed by the applicant/consumer or his representative and in case of his refusal to sign the inventory report a copy of the report is affixed at the consumer's premises and within one month of service of the report the consumer shall be entitled to complaint against the correctness of the report.
Further the Opposite Parties in their version have appraised the Forum about Regulation 91(9) of the Supply Code 2004 and have explained the quantum of transformer loss charges to be born by the consumer as per the statistics given if HT metering set is not available. Further the version reveals that where a consumer fails to pay any consumption charge for electricity or any other sum due and payable by him to licensee by the due date mentioned in the bill, the licensee may after giving not less than fifteen(15) clear days notice in writing to such person shall disconnect the power supply to the premises of the licensee and the power supply shall be reinstall after payment of all such charges. One more aspect of regulatory provision is highlighted by the Opposite Parties in their version that the licensee (presently utility) has statutory duty to supply electricity to a person on demand if the same is technically feasible and financially remunerative and in the present case the Complainant owning and installing dedicated transformer has made the supply technically feasible and remunerative. Further the version reveals that the existing power supply arrangement is based on mutualling agreed terms and condition in the contract and in the subsequent stage no party can abstain or withdrawn from his liability in the contract. The accumulation of arrear dues is for non payment of the same by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties have maintained all the legal formalities prescribed under the provision of Electricity Act 2003, so also Supply Code 2004, hence no deficiency has occurred on the part of Opposite Party in rendering service to the Complainant and the Opposite Parties have urged the Forum to dismiss the complaint against them.
Having gone through the entire case record, pleadings of the Parties, documents available in the case record, the issues likely to be decided by the Forum as follows :-
Whether the Complaint is successful in bringing the allegation of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant ?
What relief the Complainant is entitled for.
In answering issue No.1(one).
The Complainant has filed electricity bill for the month of February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October and November 2016 along with some payment receipts of invariable dates. Upon close scrutiny of the electricity bills, it is found no arrear amount was outstanding against the Complainant till July 2016, rather negative (-) arrear have been shown which clearly reveals that the Complainant has made excess payment of electricity dues pending against him. The electricity bill for the month of August 2016 shown arrear amount of Rs.976.62/-(Rupees nine hundred seventy six and sixty two paise)only, thereafter all of a sudden the electricity bill for the month of September 2016 shown arrear amount of Rs.30,651/-(Rupees thirty thousand six hundred fifty one) only pending against the Complainant. The Complainant in protest has paid Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only in two payment receipts of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only each.
The Opposite Parties in their version have claimed this arrear amount to be the transformer loss charges as per the terms and conditions of agreement between the Parties for supply of electricity to the Complainant. In course of his pleading the Opposite Parties have highlighted the various provisions of Electricity Act 2003, Regulation 52, 91(9) of the Supply Code 2004 etc. The physical verification and inventory report Dt.01/03/2016 of the Opposite Parties reveals the load enhanced to 12KVA where as the Complainant has requested the authority of Opposite Party to enhance the power supply load from 3 KW to 6 KW as per his requirement . The Opposite Parties claim the enhancement of load from 3 KW to 12 KW with the conscent of the Complainant. The inventory and physical verification report Dt.01/03/2016 neither bear the seal of the authority nor the actual signature of the Complainant made on complaint petition. So also the Opposite Parties have not mentioned the name of the beneficiary who has endorsed to the inspection report other than the Complainant. Hence the physical verification and inventory report made by the authority of Opposite Party in not a genuine one.
The electricity bills after physical verification report Dt.01/03/2016 i.e. bills from the month of April-2016 to November-2016 still show the load factor to be 3 KW as against the enhance load of 12 KW which creates a double as to genuineness of the inventory report Dt.01/03/2016. The Opposite Parties in support of their claim neither filed the original agreement between the Parties to supply electricity as per load of 3 KW to the Complainant nor filed any agreement later on as to enhancement of load factor up to 12KW in the year 2016. Moreover as per claim of the Opposite Parties the arrear amount to be the transformer loss charges no such letters or documents (notices) evidencing the same as to that effect which was duly served on the Complainant has been filed before the Forum. The Opposite Parties have filed no documents relating to their claim and all of a sudden claim arrear amount of Rs.30,651.37/-(Rupees thirty thousand six hundred fifty one and thirty seven paise)only in the bill of September-2016 is ingenuine, base less and not tangible in the eye of law. Hence from all corner of the facts, it is convincingly proved that for such act of Opposite Parties they are liable for deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant. The Issue No.1(one) is answered affirmative.
In answering issue No.1(two).
So far as the issue No.2(two) is concerned an elaborate discussion have been made of the facts and law and the Complainant is entitled for the relief as would be deemed fit as upon the consequence of the complaint. Traversing deep into the matter of fact and law and the evidence available as to the feedback, the Forum order as follows:-
O R D E R
The Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to waive out the arrear claim made against the Complainant in respect of the Consumer No. 5120-0101-0096 and further directed to made calculation as per actual power consumption in terms of load by the Complainant observing provision of law and the same be supplied to the Complainant for its payment and the power supply to the Consumer bearing No. 5120-0101-0096 shall be intact as on.
There is no order as to other cost.
The Complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
I agree, I agree,
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee) (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
M e m b e r(w). P r e s i d e n t.
