SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency-in-service against the Ops, who are the Electrical Authorities.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant has been availing the power supply from the Ops more than 40 years as a domestic consumer vide old consumer No.SII-18882 corresponding to new A/c No.11224008547 with contract load of 4.00 KW. He has been paying the electric dues regularly. Apart from it, the complainant has a 3.00 KW load connection of solar energy to his domestic premises so also 0.5 KW commercial electric connection in the name of his spouse.
The complainant has further stated that on 20.4.2022, without any intimation, OP No.3 entered into his premises and broken the seal of the meter and left out without any seal. The complainant ventilated about the said at of the OP No.3 before the higher authority. Thereafter, OP No.3 close the seal of the meter. Again on 14.7.2022, some staffs of the Ops entered into his premises and threatened to disconnect the power supply. Then and there, OP No.3 destroyed the connected meter and connected a new meter in its place. The said fact is also intimated to the OP No.1 & 2 by the complainant through registered post, but without taking any action, the Ops have demanded excess amount of Rs.78,324/-. Thereafter, on 18.8.2023, the Ops have forcibly disconnected the power supply to his premises. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant has relied on the following documents which are placed in the case record.
- Photocopy of representation.
- Photocopy of energy bill dated 8.8.2023.
- Photocopy of disconnection letter dated 18.8.2023.
3. In the present case, Ops made their appearance and filed their joint version denying the averments made in the complaint. They have also challenged as to the maintainability of the case. In their version, they have stated, inter alia, that on 8.6.2022, the verification squad of TPNODL had been to the premises of the complainant and at the time of verification, it was found that the seal of the meter was tempered and the complainant was unauthorizedly availing 9.00 KW load against the sanction load of 4.00 KW. At the spot, spot verification report was prepared and handed over it to the complainant. Thereafter, provisional assessment and final assessment was prepared amounting to Rs.78,324/- and served on the complainant. It is further stated that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and pass any order against the assessment order made U/s 126 of I.E. Act. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
To substantiate their case, the Ops have relied on the following documents which are placed in the case record.
- Photocopy of spot verification report.
- Photocopy of letter with provisional assessment order.
- Photocopy of final assessment letter.
4. In view of the above pleading of both the parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether this consumer case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
5. In the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, before delve into the merits of the case, first of all, it is to be decided as to whether the case is maintainable or not.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops since 40 years as a domestic consumer with contract load of 4.00 KW. That apart, he has a 3.00 KW load connection of solar energy to his premises so also 0.5 KW commercial electric connection in the name of his spouse. It is further submitted that on 20.4.2022, suddenly OP No.3 entered into his premises and broken the seal of the meter and left out without any seal. So, the complainant complained about the said at of the OP No.3 before his higher authority and later on OP No.3 came and close the seal of the meter. Again on 14.7.2022, some staffs of the Ops entered into his premises and threatened to disconnect the power supply. Then and there, OP No.3 destroyed the connected meter and connected a new meter in its place. The said fact is also intimated to the OP No.1 & 2 by the complainant through registered post, but without taking any action, the Ops have demanded excess amount of Rs.78,324/-.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops submitted that this is a clear case U/s 126 of I.E. Act as because on 8.6.2022, the verification squad of TPNODL had been to the premises of the complainant and at the time of verification, it was found that the seal of the meter was tempered and the complainant was unauthorizedly availing 9.00 KW load against the sanction load of 4.00 KW. At the spot, spot verification report was prepared and handed over it to the complainant. Thereafter, provisional assessment and final assessment was prepared amounting to Rs.78,324/- and served on the complainant. It is further submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and pass any order against the assessment order made U/s 126 of I.E. Act.
8. From the above rival submissions advanced by both the parties, first of all, it is to be decided as to whether this Commission has jurisdiction to sit over the matter or not. On perusal of Annexure-A, the spot visit report, it is seen the Inspecting Officer has clearly mentioned that – during physical verification, it is found that the above consumer availing power supply by tampering the meter with CT & PSC and availed power supply unauthorizedly to his premises. So, the assessment may be done as per I.E. Rule, 2003 under Section 126 Act. Although the Inspecting Officer put his initial in the place provided for it, but failed to mention the date below his initial. So, a doubt crepts in the mind of the Commission as to whether Annexure-A was actually prepared on the spot or some other day.
9. Next coming to Annexure-B, the letter No.344819012301 dated 19.01.2023 issued in favour of the complainant with regard to dispatch of provisional assessment order accompanied with the provisional assessment order of the Assessing Officer. Annexure-C is a letter No.344819012301 dated 19.02.2023 in lieu of final assessment order issued in favour of the complainant. It is clearly mentioned in the Annexure-B & Annexure-C that those were prepared on the basis of SVR dated 8.6.2022. On careful scrutiny of Annexure-A with reference to Annexure-B, it is found that spot visit was made on 8.6.2022 and the provisional assessment order was passed on 19.1.2023 i.e. after a period of 7 months and 12 days. In this regard, no satisfactory explanation is offered by the Ops for such inordinate delay in preparing the provisional assessment order. On perusal of Annexure-B & C, it is found that final assessment order was prepared within the stipulated period as prescribed under the I.E. Act. But, surprisingly, it is found that the letter of provisional assessment order dated 19.1.2023 and the letter of final assessment order dated 19.2.2023 bears the same letter number i.e. No.344819012301. In this regard, also the Ops are silent. Further, the Ops have failed to submit any document to show that the provisional assessment order and final assessment order were properly served on the complainant. So, it casts a doubt regarding the veracity of the Annexure-B & C. Ops have admitted in their written version that the complainant has filed the assessment order as Annexure-2 with his complaint petition, but, in fact, the complainant has not filed any assessment order either provisional or final.
10. Besides the above, Section 159 of the OERC (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 clearly proves that the Assessing Officer while on inspection of the premises may video graph and / or take photograph of the method of such unauthorized use or take dump report for the purpose of evidence. But in the present case, the Ops have failed to produce any videography or photographs of the method of such unauthorized avail of power supply by tampering the meter by the complainant, as stated in the SVR vide Annexure-A. That apart, in the present case, it is seen that one P.B.Swain, A.M. (Elect), A. Parida (LM-B) and A. Tripathy (LM-B) had been to the premises of the complainant on the alleged date of verification. But, the Assessing Officer has not inspected the premises of the complainant as per the provisions of the Act.
11. The complainant has claimed that he is availing power supply to his premises with load capacity of 4.00 KW. Apart from it, he is availing 3.00 KW load connection of solar energy and 0.5 KW load in the name of his spouse in the said premises. But the Ops are silent in this regard even not stated a single word at the time of hearing. In the spot visit report (Annexure-A), the Ops have mentioned the electrical apparatus/ instruments from Sl. No.1 to 7. But failed to distinguish out of the above electrical apparatus or instruments which were consuming electrical power supply and which were consuming solar power supply. The Ops have also totally failed to mention a single word about availing of power supply from solar energy by the complainant.
12. Further, Annexure-1, the written complaint submitted by the complainant to the OP No.2, shows that he had complained with regard to the fact that on 20.4.2022, OP No.3 had been to his premises and broken the seal of the electric meter and opened it from its place and again fitted it in its place stating that it was OK. On being reported about the above act of the OP No.3 before OP No.2, OP No.3 again came to his premises and sealed the meter. In the above premises, if the meter was OK and the seal of the meter was OK and the complainant used to pay the electric dues regularly without default at any time, why the Ops have taken away the old meter from the premises and installed a new meter in its place giving a colour of Section 126 I.E. Act. On the other hand, the Ops have not stated a single word with regard to the veracity of Annexure-1. Rather, in their entire version, they have stated one thing that this is a case U/s 126 I. E. Act and with such ground urged the jurisdiction of this Commission.
13. From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is clearly established that the Ops became vindictive on the complainant as because he has complained against the OP No.2, who is none other than the official staff of the TPNODL and without visiting the premises of the complainant prepared the Annexure-A to C according to their sweet will. Further, the Ops have intentionally fabricated papers showing a case U/s 126 of I.E. Act with a view to harass the innocent consumers. This type of cases are rampant in the society now-a-days and the innocent citizens, like the complainant, are suffering a lot only due to the above edged weapon of the Ops which can be used by them as and when they desired. Not only the innocent people are running from pillar to post with their grievances of different nature against the nature, conduct and act of the Ops, but also they certainly suffers from harassment, mental agony and financial hardship.
14. From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Commission is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to be adjudged U/s 126 of I.E. Act, as alleged by the Ops and hence, the case is maintainable. Therefore, it is held that the so called proceeding U/s 126 of the I.E. Act is nothing but concocted one and all the papers under Annexure-A to C are manufactured haphazardly for the purpose of the case and the penalty amount so referred in the final assessment order is held to be illegal and thereby the complainant is not binding on the assessment amount as assessed by the Ops. Further, when the assessment U/s 126 I.E. Act is held to be illegal, there no question arises for disconnection of the power supply to the premises of the complainant. Thus, the order passed by this Commission on dated 24.8.2023 is hereby made absolute.
15. But at the same time, it is seen that the complainant has failed to say a single line regarding commission of deficiency in service by the Ops. From the above, it can safely be held that the complaint is not maintainable.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
With the above observations made earlier, the case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 24th day of September, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
