DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 11th day of February, 2020
C.D Case No. 22 of 2017
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Smt. Kanika Majumdar
At: Baudpur,
Ps: Bhadrak (R),
Dist: Bhadrak ……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
Executive Engineer, Bhadrak North Electrical Division (NESCO Utility)
At: By-pass, Po/Dist: Bhadrak …………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri B. Sahu (B), Adv & Others
Counsel For the OP: Sri D. Nayak, Adv
Date of hearing: 18.12.2019
Date of order: 11.02.2020
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OP to the effect that the complainant is a domestic consumer under the above stated OP bearing his consumer No. BT-2828 towards his residential premises situated at Baudpur. Initially the consumer/complainant was supplied electricity to his premises having 1KVA load for domestic purpose and one meter and the consumer bill was raised through a meter bearing No. 0210003029. According to the meter reading the consumer bill was raised on actual basis up to the year 2014, and subsequently in the year 2015 the bill was raised an average basis due to the defects in the meter, so far as the bill particulars as per bill dt. 13.09.2015. There was a bill amount of Rs 1146/- having load capacity 1KVA and it was an average basis, (Annexure- 1) there after the bill dt. 15.12.2015 was raised also an average basis for an amount of Rs 6,148/- but the capacity of load is mentioned as 5KVA (Annexure- 2). According to the bill 15.12.2015 (Annexure- 2) the average bill amount was Rs 6,148/- but there after no bill was raised and all of a sudden a bill dt. 16.12.2016 was received by the complainant where in it was mentioned the bill was an actual basis of an unit 5019 and the connecting load is mentioned as 5KVA with the meter bearing No. NCL-30754. After race living the bill the complainant was astonished to see the bill particulars, as per bill dt. 16.12.2016 where a total amount of Rs 93,145/- (Annexure- 3) is imposed as bill amount. The above calculation of the bill is arbitrary and it is also wrong one and became as per (Annexure- 2) the bill amount was of Rs 6,148/- where as the bill dt. 16.12.2016 (Annexure- 3) reveals it is Rs 93,145/-. The complainant used to pay the bill amount in each and every month so he has no negligence regarding payment. On the other hand the OP is in negligent to prepare the bill in the consumer account. The consumer/complainant had ever applied for enhancement of load from 1KVA to 5 KVA in any point of time and the bill raised on dt. 16.12.2016 is arbitrary one. Though the complainant is requested to rectify the bill as per Annexure- 3 but it is going on and the bill dt. 14.01.2017 (Annexure- 4) prevails as same status amounting of Rs 82,350/- and which requires to be rectify. The cause of action of this dispute arises on dt. 27.03.2017 when the OP’s office staff directly threatened to disconnect the power supply, demanding the irregular bill amount.
Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs.
1. The bill as per Annexure- 3 & 4 which is outstanding the declined as erroneous.
2. The complainant be awarded Rs 20,000/- towards mental agony, financial loss and cost of the litigation.
Documents filed by the complainant (Xerox copies).
1. Four numbers of electricity bill such as Annexure- 1, 2, 3 & 4- 4 sheets.
2. Four numbers of electricity bills vide No. 31855, 115582, 325758, 631230 (Annexure- 5).
3. Four numbers of electricity bills (Annexure- 6)- 1 sheet.
4. Two numbers of electricity bills (Annexure- 7)- 1 sheet.
5. Money receipt dt. 18.07.2014- 1 sheet.
6. Money receipts dt. 29.04.2015- 1 sheet.
7. Three numbers of money receipts (Annexure- 8).
8. Three numbers of money receipts (Annexure- 9).
10. Three numbers of money receipts (Annexure-10).
11. Three numbers of money receipts (Annexure-11).
12. Two numbers of money receipts (Annexure- 12).
On the other hand the OP has filed their written version as follows that complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and Electricity Act, Rules and Regulation. The complainant has no cause of action. The complaint is not maintainable within the preview of this jurisdiction of this Forum because the preliminary assessment and the final assessment made by the assessing officer U/s 126 of O.E.R.C Act 2003 so the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this Forum because the offence has been committed by the complainant U/s 135 to 142 of the Act 2003. Finally the OP has prayed for the dismissal of this complaint.
The OP relied upon the following documents.
1. Provisional Assessment order.
2. SVR.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint and documents filed by the complainant. As well as the written version and documents filed by the O.Ps. The O.Ps have claimed that the provisional assessment has been made by the assessing officer and final assessment also has been assessed by the same officer. After assessment it has been found that and observed that the complainant indulged in pilferage of electricity in an authorized manner and availing power supply to a tune of 50 KW load by using power supply of which invites penal action U/s 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. The claim of the OP could not be sustained because he has filed no document with regard to the provisional assessment and the final assessment. According to the law the notices as well as the reports and the provisional assessment and final assessment, the copies thereon must be served upon the complainant/consumer, but here we find the OP has failed to perform the provisions of law. He has neither served copies of both the assessments nor the notices upon the complainant/consumer. The OP has also not filed of such documents in this Forum. Hence we have found that the claim of the OP assessment U/s 126 of the O.E.R.C Act, 2003 is not sustainable. So the complaint is maintainable in this Forum. The bills prepared by the OP are required to be revised according to the bills of the previous months. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed against OP on contest. The OP is here by directed to revise the bills from the month of March, 2017 to hence spot. The bills are required to be revised taking average of the bill amount of previous consecutive three months such as December, 2016 January & February, 2017. The OP is also directed to pay Rs 3,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the litigation without any compensation only.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 11th February, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
