DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK
Dated the 30th day of September, 2020
C.D Case No. 62 of 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Ashok Kumar Mohanty, aged about 56 years,
S/o Late Muralidhar Mohanty of vill- Hatiapada,
Po- Khaparapada, Ps-Dhusuri, Dist- Bhadrak
…….. Complainant
Versus
- Executive Engineer ,electrical ,Bhadrak
At/Po/Dist. –Bhadrak.
- The S.D.O (Electrical) ,Asurali sub-division ,
At/Po – Asurali, Ps- Dhamnagar, Dist- Bhadrak
- J.E Electrical, Asurali Division, Asurali
At/Po – Asurali, Ps - Dhamnagar, Dist- Bhadrak
………..Opposite parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri A. Rath, Adv
Counsel For the O.Ps: Smt. G. Pradhan, Adv
Date of hearing: 23.07.2019
Date of order: 30.09.2020
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
That, one Muralidhar Mohanty of Vill- Hatiapada is the consumer under the O.Ps, bearing consumer No. Old (OG –18/11/07 and new consumer no. /Ac No. 422322010133. Muralidhar Mohanty was succeeded by his only son Ashok Kumarmohanty, the complainant. After the death of the complainant’s father, he has been residing in his ancestral house as the successor of his father. The complainant has been using the power supply in respect of the aforesaid consumer numbers and has been regularly paying the Electricity charges to the O.Ps .They have no arrear of electric charges upon the complainant .Suddenly the O.Ps have claimed more electric charges upon the complainant.
The ops had not installed any electricity meter in the dwelling house of the complainant, initially since 1997. In the month of November 2017 the ops reached at the village of the complainant , talked to the complainant and the villagers and assured them to install the meters in the dwelling house of every consumer`s house. After that on 28/02/2018 the O.Ps installed in the house of the complainant. The complainant had to deposit RS. 500/- towards the installation of the meter. Since then the complainant has been paying electricity dues according to the meter reading regularly.
It is a matter of regret that in the month of March, year 2018 the O.Ps threatened to the complainant to disconnect the electricity connection to the house of the complainant because there was a huge amount of arrears laying unpaid by the complainant. Again the O.Ps advised to the complainant also if RS. 10,000 -/ would be deposited by the complainant then the entire arrear would be exempted and the bills would be up to dated. According to the advise of the O.Ps the complainant had deposited Rs10,000/- in the office of the OP No. 2.
On 15/09/2018 the OP No. 1 and 2 reached at the dwelling house of the complainant, they entered in to the dwelling house of the complainant. They talked to the mother-in-law of the complainant who was remaining in the dwelling house alone, misbehaved with her, rebuked her with filthy language and threatened her to disconnect the electricity supply. They served no notice for disconnection but actually they disconnected the power supply to the house of the complainant. Later the complainant came to know from his mother-in-law about the disconnection and misbehaviour of the O.Ps towards the complainant`s mother- in- law. The complainant is aggrieved because the O.Ps claimed RS. 1,11,932.86/- towards the electricity dues. So the complainant was compelled to file this complaint in this forum being aggrieved with the deficiency of service and illegal trade practice of the O.Ps.
Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs –
- The claimed amount RS. 1, 11,932.86/- be exempted from the complainant.
- The O.Ps be directed to pay RS. 10,000/- to the complainant towards the compensation
III. The complainant is awarded RS. 5000/- towards the cost of the litigation
List of documents relied upon by the complainant.
- Bill for the month of September 2018.
- E-payment receipt for the month of March, may, July, august & others.
On the other hand all the O.Ps have filed their written statement analogously. They have challenged the maintainability of this complaint in the present forum. They have described that the present dispute comes under Section .126 of the Electricity Act 2003. As per the decision of the honourable supreme court of India has held in the case of “U.P Power Corporation vs. Anish Ahmed case of theft of electricity and assessment under section .126 of Electricity Act 2003 is tribal by the consumer forums. So, the case should be dismissed as not maintainable.” As per decision of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi passed in Walmik vs Maharashtra State Electricity on 13 January, 2015 where in the commission held that “in my view, once the opposite party takes a plea that the case in question was a case of theft of electricity, the Consumer forum would not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and go into the question as to whether there was actually theft of electricity or not”.
Further the O.Ps have partly admitted the averments of Para No. 1 of the complaint, and partly denied. They alleged that the present complainant has neither intimated the O.Ps about the death of his father Muralidhar Mohanty nor applied for the change of ownership of the aforesaid consumer number .The O.Ps have denied all the allegations made in the Para No. 2 of the complaint against them. The fact is that the complainant is a regular defaulter of electricity dues. The O.Ps have also denied the allegations made in the Para No.3 of the complaint made by the complainant. The O.Ps have observed the rules, regulations and Electricity Act, 2003 while preparing electricity bills. The O.Ps have also denied the averments made in the PARA No. 4 of the complaint. The O.Ps has alleged that the complainant suppressed the material facts. They mentioned that in the month of February 2018 a new meter vide. No. NLT039240 was installed and the consumer deposited Rs 2000/- as arrear dues and in the month of March 2018 the consumer deposited Rs 10,116/- as part payment of the arrear dues against the total arrear dues RS .112, 172.78/-. The O.Ps have also averred in the Para No. 7 of the WS that the averments made by the complainant in Para No. 5 of the complaint is not correct. It is a fact that on 15/09/2018 the vigilance team of NESCO utility headed by the then executive engineer of Corporate Office of Balasore along with S.D.O (Elect.) Asurali and J.E (Elect) Asurali inspected the premises of the complainant and found that the complainant was dishonestly abstracting power by putting a PVC wire hooked from the LT line to his house and therefore bypassed the electricity. The load was assessed 2.370 K.W against the approved Contact Demand (C.D) of 1.5 K.W. According Spot Verification Report (S.V.R) was prepared in the presence of the representative of the consumer named Smt. Anitabala Dash. Thereafter, the provisional assessment order was prepared by the Dy. Manager (Elect.) Asurali, Bhadrak amounting to Rs19,675,00/- and despatched to the address to the consumer vide letter No- 634 dated 22/10/2018 by registered post No- RLA R082387005IN which was returned as “addressee expired”. Again, the said provisional assessment order was sent by hand but the same was refused to be received by the complainant. As per Regulation 102 of the O.E.R.C distribution Code 2004, the said notice was affixed in the house of the complainant .Despite service of provisional assessment order. The complainant did not participate in the show cause hearing, so accordingly the final assessment order was passed and duly served upon the consumer as per Regulation 102 of the O.E.R.C Distribution code -2004 by affixing it on the wall of the consumer. When the consumer did not pay the final assessment amount the same was added in the Energy Bill of the Consumer.
That, in the Para No. 8 of the WS the O.Ps have averred that the facts stated in the Para No -6 of the complaint are misquoted and misinterpreted. The fact is that after installation of the new meter in the month of FEB -2018 the consumer was using Electricity by hooking process in order to show low consumption of units in the meter, In order to evade payment of Electricity dues of previous consumption. So the Bill revision was withheld by the O.Ps. Further the O.Ps have denied the averments made by the complainant in the Para No-7 of the complaint. The fact is that due notice was served as per the usual procedure and the final assessment amount was credited to his Electricity Bills when the complainant neglected to pay the same. The O.Ps has admitted in the Para No -10 of their WS, they did not revise the Bill as the complainant dishonestly tried to evade the public dues. The power supply was immediately disconnected as per the Regulation the 34 and 46 of O.E.R.C Distribution Code 2004. So service of notice before disconnection was not required by law. The O.Ps have absolutely denied the averments made in the PARA No-9 of the complaint .The O.Ps have admitted the averments of the PARA No- 10 of the complaint. The O.Ps have vehemently objected the reliefs sought for in the complaint and challenged that this proceeding U/S 126 of the Electricity Act ,2003 not maintainable in this forum but on other hand the complainant should have filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority U/S 127 of the Act . The O.Ps have further admitted that on dt. 25/09/2018 the O.Ps reconnected the power supply to the premises of the complainant after deposited of RS.5000-/ and reconnection charges.
Hence the O.Ps prayed for the dismissal of this proceeding.
Documents relied upon by the O.Ps
- Judgement of State Consumer Dispute Commission , Cuttack
- Judgement of National Consumer Commission , New Delhi
- Spot verification reports.
- Provisional assessment order
- Proof of service of provisional assessment order.
- Notice issued to the complainant.
- Final assessment order.
- Proof of service of final assessment order.
- Any other relevant documents will be field at the time of hearing
10 Billing statement.
OBSERVATION
We have already gone through the complaint and the Documents filed by the complainant, as well as the W/s and documents filed by the O.Ps.The complainant has aggrieved that as he had been regularly paying Electricity dues to the O.Ps and due to their threatening to the complainant he deposited Rs 10,000/- in the office of the OP No. 2. On 15/09/2018 the o.ps reached at the dwelling house of the complainant, entered into the house when the mother in law of the complainant as present at home. The complainant was absent at that time. The O.Ps threatened to the complainant’s mother in law and misbehaved with her, to disconnect the power supply from his dwelling house, and finally disconnected the same. But on the other hand the o.ps have raised serious allegation against the complainant, that the consumer no. AGIS1107 corresponding NEW A/C No. 42232201133 stands recorded in the name of Muralidhar Mohanty Domestic Category having 1K.W load. They have also alleged thatthe complainant is the S/O – Late Muralidhar Mohanty. The complaint has failed to mention when his father died. The complainant also failed to inform this matter to the O.Ps. After the death of Late Muralidhar Mohanty who was the actual consumer. His name should have been struck up from the consumers register of the O.Ps office. The complainant should have informed this matter to the O.Ps by writing and as he is the only L.R or Legal heir of his deceased father his name should have been entered into the consumer’s register. It was the duty of the consumer to enable the o.ps to register his own name as the consumer in respect of the aforesaid Consumer No. (Old and new). We find no evidence in the case record regarding the information submitted by the complainant before the o.ps regarding the death of his father. We have also observed that, the name of a dead consumer still exists in the consumer’s register.
The complainant has filed No. 6 of money receipt on Dt. 20/03/2018, 15/05/2018, 11/07/2018, 31/07/2018 and 19/09/2018. The complainant has not filed any other money receipts for any other years. We are in darkness that whether the complainant had been paying the Electric dues for previous years. The o.ps have described in their W.S that the complainant is a chronic defaulter of payment. It is a fact that the complainant had not been paying Electricity dues regularly. The O.Ps have filed statement of payment as their Evidence.
Further the O.Ps have charged U/S 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and submitted several decisions of Honourable Supreme Court of India, Honourable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, Honourable National Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi regarding the maintainability of this compliant. The O.Ps have filed 10 numbers of Documents in support of them. According to those aforesaid decisions the complainant has not come to this forum clean handed. According to Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act the burden of proof lies upon the complainant to prove his case.
Secondly, as per the decision of Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in Walmik vs. Maharashtra State Electricity on Dt. 13/01/2015 wherein the Commission held that “In my view once the OP takes a plea that the case in question was the case of theft of Electricity, the Consumer Forum would not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and go in to the question as to whether there was actually theft of Electricity or not “. In another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India passed in U.P Power Corporation vrs. AnishAhmed , “the cases of theft of Electricity and assessment U/S -126 of Electricity Act ,2003 is not tribal by the Consumer Forums”.
Further it is not a believable fact that, “complainant was not present at the time of spot enquiry on Dt. 15/09/2018 at his dwelling house and none of his family member was present there except the mother in law of the complainant. The o.ps suddenly entered into the house of the complainant illegally, misbehaved with the lady being abused her with obscene languages.” The complainant should have proved this statement made by him in the paragraph No. 5m of the complaint. Further the process served of the O.Ps has reported before the O.Ps that he visited the house of the complainant to serve notice and reports, but no one of his family had received the same on 03.10.2018. Hence, it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed without cost & compensation. This order must be carried out by the parties within 30 days on receipt of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 30th September, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
