Date of filling:- 02/07/2019.                                                                                                                                                                                                         Date of Order/Judgement:-16/10/2023.                                         

                                           DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B  A  R  G  A  R  H

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO. 47 OF  2019

MNITC, represented through its Managing trustee Gunasagar Nag S/o. Late Mohan Nag, aged about 54 years, At. Mohan Nag ITI, Sandeepani Ashram Siridi Bihar, At/Po/Ps/Tah/Dist. Bargarh (Odisha). 

                                                                                                   Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

Executive Engineer Electrical, Bargarh Electric Division WESCO  Utility, AT/Po/Dist. Bargarh.                                                                                                           Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-      :- Sri Bikramaditya Panda, Advocate with Associates.

For the Opposite Party:-    :- Sri T.C. Tripathy, Advocate with Associates.

                                                -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra            .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....         .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.16/10/2023.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Anju Agarwal,  Member (w) :-

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the managing Trustee of Mohan Nag Industrial Training centre (M.N.I.T.C). M.N.I.T.C is a philanthropic trust dealing with education SC,ST and Other Backward Class. The Complainant on Dt. 26/06/2006 entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party for availing electric connection. After installing a transformer with own cost the Complainant was paying regular electric charges without fail. There was no outstanding due till May 2018 but on Dt. 11/07/2018, the Complainant received an arrear bill of  Rs. 1,59,871/-(Rupees one lakh fifty nine thousand eight hundred seventy one)only. After receiving the bill the Complainant approached the billing department for correction of the bill but the Opposite Party never corrected the bill. The field staff of Opposite Party are coming every month to the MNITC and pressuring the Complainant to pay or else the line will be disconnected.

For the act of the Opposite Party, the Complainant got harassed and filed the Complaint before the Commission.

2. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party has filed its version and submitted that the Complainant is not coming under the definition of Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and hence the case is not maintainable. The Opposite party further submitted that in view of the verdict given by Honble Apex court reported in the matter of U.P. power crop. Ltd and others Vrs Aris. Ahmed reported in ANR 2013 SC 758/2013. Complaint against the assessment made by an assessing officer under section 126 or against the offence Committed under 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act not maintainable before a Consumer forum. The Opposite Party has raised additional bill to a tune of Rs. 1,59,871/-(Rupees one lakh fifty nine thousand eight hundred seventy one)only is the applicable charges for transformer loss from the date of power supply Dt. 27/11/2006 to March 2018 is in consonance with the provisions of Sec 56 of the Act 2003. The Complainant had installed the transformer having capacity of 25 KVA and since the Commencement of Power supply with 18 KW load. Thus the Complainant has to pay the transformer loss charges in accordance with REG.93 (9) of the Supply code 2004.

The Complainant has installed the self-owned transformer of 25KVA capacity at its premises which is a profitable and commercial institute. The Opposite Party found that subsequent to commencement of power supply it is found that the Complainant has not billed for the Consumption for self, owned transformer installed in its premises, accordingly the Opposite Party duly calculated the bill for the transformer loss from date of power supply in November 2006 to March 2018 to a tune of  Rs. 1,58,156/-(Rupees one lakh fifty eight thousand one hundred fifty six)only and secured the additional bill along with the monthly bill for May 2018. The Complainant is availing power supply in high tension supply through LT Meter Upon contract agreed upon by the parties, the utility has levied transformer loss charges upon the Complainant as per the provisions of REG. 93 (9) of the Supply code 2004. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The case to be dismissed.

3. Perused the Complaint petition, documents, written as well as oral submission and following issues are framed:-

ISSUES

1. Whether the Opposite Party is deficiency in service/has committed unfair trade practice ?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled for  ?

Issue No.1.

            It is an admitted fact that the Complainant is a Consumer of the Opposite Party and on Dt. 26/06/2016 an agreement was signed between the Complainant and the Opposite party. On Dt. 11/07/2018, the Complainant received the bill with arrear of Rs. 1,59,871/-(Rupees one lakh fifty nine thousand eight hundred seventy one)only. The Opposite Party has submitted that the arrear of Rs. 1,59,871/-(Rupees one lakh fifty nine thousand eight hundred seventy one)only is regarding transformer loss and the same has been agreed to pay as per the agreement.

            After going through the agreement Dt. 25/06/2016 between the Complainant and the parties, in clause 6, charges to be paid by the Consumer. The Consumer shall pay to the Engineer ror power demanded and electrical energy supplied under this Agreement, minimum Monthly charges, demand charges, energy charges and other charges in accordance with the provisions of OERC Distribution (conditions of supply) code, 2004 and as notified in the Tariff  Notifications from time to time.

            Provided that the annual sum payable by any individual consumer under the provisions of section 2 of the Indian  Electricity Act, 1920 shall not be deemed to be part of the minimum monthly charges or demand charges, if any, payable by the consumer or the particular class of consumers under Regulations 84 and 85 of the OERC Distribution (conditions supply) code, 2004.

            Provided further that the Consumer shall pay electricity duty or such other levy, tax or duty as may be prescribed under any other law in addition to the charges, fuel surcharge and transformer loss payable under the OERC Distribution (condition of supply) code, 2004. The decision by Honble State Commission, Cuttack in FA No. 52/2020 TPWODL VS Tusharkanta Nandi  is held in this case.

            As, there was agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite Party to pay for transformer loss and according the Complainant has to pay for transformer loss.

Issue No.2.   

            As discussed supra, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

            Accordingly it is ordered.

O R D E R

The case is  dismissed against the Opposite Party. No cost to the Complainant.

Order pronounced in open court on this 16^th day of  October  2023.

   Supply free copies to the parties.  

                                                                                              Typed to my dictation

                                                                                    and corrected by me.                                                                                           

I  agree,

( Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)                                                (Smt. Anju Agarwal)                                                            Dt.16/10/2023                                                                     Dt.16/10/2023

 P r e s i d e n t                                                                 M e m b e r (w)