DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 27th day of July, 2020
C.D Case No. 35 of 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Smt. Bishnupriya Behera
W/o Suryamani Behera
At: Naami,
Ps: Bhandaripokhari,
Dist: Bhadrak, Odisha
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
The Executive Engineer, Bhadrak South Electrical Division (NESCO Utility)
At/Po/Ps: Bhadrak
……………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri B. Sahu (B), Adv & Others
Counsel For the OP: Smt. G. Pradhan Dy. Manager Legal (NESCO)
Date of hearing: 17.07.2019
Date of order: 27.07.2020
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OP.
The facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a consumer vide No. GA-43234 and had taken connection of electricity to Poultry Feed Processing Unit situated at Naami for a contract demand of 15 K.W load. The complainant had been consuming power supply upon execution of standard agreement according to his own requirement. The complainant was very much regular in payment of energy bills up to February, 2018 without default. It is evident that the consumer has cleared up all of his energy dues up to the date mentioned as above but all on a sudden the OP served a arrear bill of Rs 5,15,766/- during the month of March, 2018 including the current bill for the month. Having seen the arrear bill complainant lodged objection with the OP and requested for revision as the bills of previous months were prepared on actual consumption basis. The complainant has, time and again met the OP very frequently for waiver of arrear and revision of bill so as to enable him to pay the bill regularly but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to the sincere request of complainant and also did not revise the bill. Such act of OP was intended to harass a bonafide consumer which amounts to deficiency of service and imposition of hypothetical amount without having any justification proves unfair trade practice. Being aggrieved by the activities of OP, the complainant finding no other way, filed a case in this Forum praying for relief specifically to waive out the illegally imposed arrear amount along with cost & compensation.
OP protested the contentions of complainant and contested the case. At the outset OP, in it’s written version has stated that the complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum as she is not a consumer within the meaning of CP Act. The complainant’s project is purely business activity and has employed so many laborers to operate the project. In this context the OP has furnished a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court between Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industrial Institution reported in 1995 AIR 2428 wherein the learned Court observed that “business to consumer dispute and not for “business to business” disputes”. Further OP has stated that the complainant is a three- phase consumer of electricity under commercial/general purpose category bearing consumer No. GA-43234, consuming the electricity power for other purposes beyond the permissible limit. According to the standard agreement executed the complainant was permitted to use the electricity power for poultry farming and poultry feed processing unit. But on verification in the year 2012 it was noticed that the complainant has illegally setup a rice huller for paddy processing which is operated using the electricity power without the permission of OP and violating the terms of the agreement. In the result of verification the complainant was imposed with additional electricity charges and fine in the year 2012. Even after the objection the complainant disobeying the instruction of competent authority and has been utilizing power unauthorizedly which resulted imposition of arrear since the date of verification in the year 2012. Whatever amount has been assessed and imposed as a arrear is just and proper and the complainant is bound to pay the same. Finally OP submitted that unauthorize consumption of electricity power has resulted imposition of additional charges and fine also which cannot be exempted. Further it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has suppressed the material facts as regards converting the poultry feed processing unit to rice processing unit. Hence the case is bereft of merit and liable to be dismissed.
Evidently the complainant is a consumer of OP vide consumer No. GA-43234 and has been consuming electricity power for her poultry farm and poultry feed processing unit since 2005 as a domestic consumer. In the year 2008 with the change of Govt. policy the said unit was declared as an agriculture unit as it comes under agricultural Allied activity. The said unit covers two parts such as poultry farming and processing of poultry feed. Other than this the OP objected the contentions of complainant.
1. In course of hearing the complainant argued that she has been enjoying the power supply since inception of the unit which covers both poultry farming and poultry feed processing unit. But the OP in the year 2012 did not consider the feed processing unit as a part of the total unit and illegally imposed penalty on the grievance of the complainant and forced to make payment of arrear amount of Rs 57,841/- on the plea that the rice huller installed inside the premises does not form a part of the poultry unit. But in reality the said huller was installed for processing of rice and other relevant material for the poultry feed. When the OP imposed the arrear amount together with penalty in the year 2012, the matter was protested by the complainant. Subsequently the complainant went on paying the energy bill regularly in every month but all of a sudden the OP served an arrear bill of Rs 5,15,766/- on dt. 23.08.2018, which is illegal and irrelevant. The complainant protested the same and requested the OP to exempt the arrear amount together with the fine imposed. On the contrary the OP argued that the rice huller installed in the premises of the complainant is not a part of whole unit and the power consumed for operating the rice huller shall be paid by the complainant. Heard both the parties on this particular point and perused materials on record. It is found that the complainant has made a written submission on dt. 30.08.2012 requesting the OP to reconsider exemption of penalty imposed along with arrear energy bill. Since then OP has neither considered the grievance petition of the complainant nor initiated any action to resolve the problem, even though they have assessed the excess power consumption which is acknowledged by Sri Suryamani Behera, the husband of the complainant. Secondly it is astonishing as to why the OP remained silent over a period of six years for realization of the arrear bill and what prompted the OP to serve such a huge bill in the year 2018 is not explained in the written version nor disclosed at the time of hearing. This leads to believe that the OP is having ill intention due to personal grudge or to harass the complainant in any manner. During this period, OP could have disconnected the power supply to the premises of the complainant or could have taken stringent action against the complainant to recover the dues. Secondly the concept of OP as to excluding the poultry feed processing machines from the unit is not fair as the unit comprises of both poultry farming and feed processing. Hence imposition of extra charges segregating both the parts is also illegal as the argil allied activity comprises of both the parts. Hence the objection of OP is not sustainable.
2. As regards maintainability of this case in the Consumer Forum complainant argued in stating that he has not employed many workers in the unit to get it operated rather both the complainant and her husband and other family members manage to handle everything to run the unit. The contention of OP is absolutely false, fabricated and imaginary. On the other hand it is stated by the OP that such an unit cannot be managed as argued by the complainant. Further initially the standard agreement executed between the parties before availing the connection was for 15 K.W which is subsequently enhanced to 25 K.W. In reply to the objection the complainant explained that according to the terms of agreement the complainant is liable to pay the energy bill on actual consumption basis which is carried out sincerely by the complainant without any violation. Hence the act of imposing huge amount of arrear is arbitrary in the eyes of law. Further the complainant is a bonafide consumer under the OP as she has been paying service charges regularly in every month.
From the facts enumerated as above this Forum arrives at the conclusion that the unit being an agricultural allied activity, imposition of penalty and extra energy bill in arrears is felt not fare.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint be and the same is allowed against the OP without compensation. OP is directed to revise the bill waiving out the arrear amount imposed including penalty if any and serve the revised bill within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and also directed to pay sum of Rs 2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 27th July, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
