Orissa

Cuttak

CC/149/2015

Parian Kumar Bharisinka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer.CESU - Opp.Party(s)

P K Mohanty

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                            C.C.No.149/2015

 

                        Sri Pawan Kumar Bhawsinka,

S/O:Late Shyam Sundar Bhawsinka,

Cantonment Road,Cuttack.                                                               ... Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       Central Electricity Supply Utility of

Orissa through its Executive Engineer,

City Distributioin Division,,

                  CESU,Ranihat,Cuttack

 

         2.    A.G.M(Electrical) CESU,CDD-1:Cuttack,

                 Ranihat Cuttack

 

3.      Deputy Manager,(Com.),

Sub-Division No.1,CESU,Ranihat,Cuttack..

 

4.      Sub-Divisional Officer(Electrical),

CESCO,City Distribution Division,

Ranihat,Cuttack.                                                                  ... Opp. Parties

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   19.12.2015

Date of Order:  26.07.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. P.K.Mohanty,Advocate.

For the O.Ps.               :      Mr. S.C.Dash,Adv. & Associates.     

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member                           

            Case of the complainant in short is that he is a consumer of electricity bearing consumer A/c no.00590429(03-G-016/044) and he is enjoying the electric supply since long by making payments of electric charges as per the bills.  After 2002 there was no supply of electricity bills by the O.Ps to the complainant inspite of his regular demand to them.  The complainant made last payment on 2.10.2001 amounting to Rs.1878/-.  The complainant had made representation to the O.P No.1 & 4 requesting them for replacement of his electric meter which was a defective one, so also had requested them to supply energy consumed bills so that he can make the payments.  But the O.Ps remained silent and all on a sudden, the O.Ps in the absence of the complainant, had inspected his residence and had verified his meter on 23.9.15.  The O.Ps after verification had given a report which clearly reveals that the meter was a defective one.  The inspecting team wrongly and without any basis had indicated that the supply of energy was used for commercial purposes; which is totally false and without any basis.  The load factors had been wrongly assessed.  The O.Ps on the basis of the inspection report dt.23.9.2015 had revised the electricity bill since 5/2003 to 4/2015 making a huge demand of Rs.2,45,376/- which is illegal, arbitrary, excessive and without any authority of law for which, the same is liable to be withdrawn.  The complainant represented on 30.11.2015 to the O.Ps against the high demand made by them and requested for consideration of his case but the O.Ps without considering his representation had disconnected the electricity supply to his premises on 4.12.2015.  It is also stated that as per the provision of Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of supply) Code,2004, in short Code-2004, the demand made by the O.Ps is barred by law of limitation and the O.Ps have never raised the bill  or supplied the bills to the complainant at any point of time since 2001.  The O.Ps cannot recover any sum due from any consumer after elapse of 2 years from the date when such sum became due as per the provisions of Regulation-94 as well as Regulation-100(2) of Code-2004.  Thus, the revision of the bills and making demand thereof since 5/2003 to 9/2015 is illegal and the said bill is liable to be revised, so also it is stated that the O.Ps had not raised any bill against the complainant since 2001.  The O.Ps fixed consumption of 430 units per month is also without any basis.  The complainant had not consumed such units of electrical energy at all.  The calculation was to be made and bills were to be prepared after installation of a new meter since because the meter was a defective one.  The O.Ps had acted violating the provisions and the regulation-58,89,90,92,94,97 & 100 as well as other provisions of the said Code,2004.  It is urged by the complainant to restore the electricity connection immediately.  It is also stated that the O.Ps have committed deficiency in their service by raising the penal bill as well as by disconnecting the power supply.  Hence, he has filed the present case with a prayer for direction to the O.Ps to withdraw the demand made against him amounting to Rs.2,45,376/-  vide Annexure-5. The complainant also has claimed a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards his mental agony, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of reputation,Rs.20,000/- towards to and fro charges to visit the office of the O.Ps alongwith Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation expenses.

            The complainant in order to prove his case has filed xerox copy of some documents.

2.         The O.Ps have filed their written version jointly.  It is stated by them that on scrutiny of the billing statement of the consumer, it was found that from 3/2001 to 3/2003 the electricity bill of the complainant was Rs.11,623/- but during that period, the complainant had paid only Rs.1878/- on 3.10.2001.  It reveals from the status payment of electricity dues of the complainant that it is very irregular in nature.  So the power supply of the complainant was disconnected in the month of 04/2003 due to non-payment of arrear dues.  The final reading of the meter was 5560 unit at the time of disconnection.  On 24.8.2015 one Sri Kumar Bhawnsinka had applied for a new electricity connection, who was co-owner of the premises where the complainant was residing.  After receipt of such application the Jr. Manager of O.Ps had verified the premises of the said applicant as per the clause-10 of OERC (Conditions of Supply) Code,2004.  On verification, the said Jr. Manager detected that the complainant was unauthorisedly consuming electricity by connecting the service wire to  the pole.  Hence, the said Jr. Manager called to the MRT Squad for verification of the meter in the premises of the complainant.  Accordingly the MRT Squad verified the meter in the premises of the complainant.  On verification, it was found that the consumer service wire was OK, power supply status was OK but the meter was running slow than the normal circulation.  Hence the meter status was declared to be defective.  On verification it was observed that the consumer was using unauthorised load of 9.50kw where his C.D was of  1.00kw only. The consumption of electricity by the complainant was for commercial purposes.  But the complainant had taken power supply for domestic purposes.  The final reading on the date of verification i.e, 23.9.15 was found to be 69626.90 units.  Basing upon the verification report, the O.Ps calculated the electricity dues on commercial basis and intimated the complainant on 24.11.2015 to clear the dues of Rs.2,45,376/- which includes the previous arrear dues of Rs.9,745.25p which was upto 3/2003.  The O.Ps in the said letter had sent notice U/S-100(1) of O.E.R.C Code,2004 for disconnection of power supply, on failure in payment of the said arrear dues.  The complainant had represented for consideration of his grievances but as because the calculation was made as per actual meter reading, there was no scope for reconsideration. It is stated by the O.Ps that the power supply to the premises of the complainant was disconnected since 4/2003 but the complainant has been availing power supply unauthorisedly, for which there was no scope for serving the electricity bill upon the complainant.  It is stated by the O.Ps that this Commission vide its order dt.1.1.2016 had directed the O.P to supply electricity connection on payment of Rs.50,000/- towards arrear dues besides payment of reconnection charges and current monthly dues.  The complainant had deposited Rs.25,000/- towards arrear dues and Rs.150/- towards the reconnection charges on 12.1.2016 and the O.Ps on the same day restored the power supply to the premises of the complainant.   But the complainant had violated the order of this Commission by not depositing rest amount of Rs.25,000/-.  The O.Ps further have mentioned that as per O.E.R.C Code,2004, the GRF  is the competent authority to decide  the billing dispute between the complainant and the O.Ps.  Hence it is prayed for dismissal of the case.

            The O.Ps have filed xerox copy of the documents in support of their case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition as well as in the written version, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in order to adjudicate the present case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there is any cause of action to file the case?

            iii.        Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issue no.1.

            The complainant is a consumer of electricity.  Hence he is a consumer under the Act and his case is maintainable.

Issue No.3.

            Out of the rest issues, issue no.3 being a vital issue is taken up first for consideration.

            Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer of electricity.  The complainant has admitted that he had received the electricity bill till 2001 and had paid Rs.1878/- on 2.10.2001.  But thereafter no bill has been served upon him till 2015.  It is also stated by him that due to defect in his meter, he had represented the O.Ps to change his electrical meter in the year 2003 but the O.Ps had not changed the meter.  It is admitted fact that the complainant was all along using the electricity energy till the disconnection was made by the O.Ps on 4.12.2015 without paying of single pie towards the electricity dues since from the year 2001.  The case of the O.Ps is that due to non-payment of electricity dues, his electricity connection was disconnected in April,2003 for which  there was no scope for the O.Ps in order to serve energy consumed  bills to the complainant.  The complainant in order to prove his innocence should have approached the O.Ps under Clause-93(ii) of Code,2004 as it is the obligation of the complainant to approach engineer to obtain a duplicate bill for payment of the same.  Although the complainant alleged that he had approached the O.Ps for his electricity bill, no evidence has been adduced to that effect by the complainant.  Hence, his bald statement in that score is never trustworthy.   The complainant wrote to the O.Ps for change of his electrical meter but thereafter had remained silent.  He was using the electricity till 23.9.2015, the date when the MRT Squad of O.Ps detected unauthorise use of electricity by him.   The MRT Squad on verification of the complainant’s electric meter gave a report which has been annexed by the complainant as Annexure-4.  The said verification report has been signed by the son of the complainant.  That verification report cannot be disputed.  The said verification report reveals that the complainant has been using 9.50 kw., whereas his C.D is 1 kw only.  The details of use of the kw. has been described in the said verification report.  The O.Ps as per actual meter reading and basing on verification report calculated the dues on commercial basis and intimated the complainant to clear the amount of Rs.2,45,376/- which includes the previous arrear dues to the tune of Rs.9,745/-; which was upto 3/2003.  The O.Ps in the said letter had given notice U/S-100(i) of the OERC Code,2004 to the complainant for disconnection of power supply on failure of payment of the said arrear dues.  The complainant thereafter represented to reduce the bill amount but the O.P has not considered the same as the dues was raised on the basis of actual meter reading and there was no scope for reconsideration.  When the complainant did not pay the arrear dues, the O.Ps had disconnected the power supply on 4.12.2015.   Hence, it can be said here that there was no deficiency of service by the O.Ps as alleged.   The complainant had referred Regulation-94 as well as 100 of the Code,2004 and  has taken a plea that after lapse of 2 years, the O.Ps should not demand the arrear dues.  But in the present case, the O.Ps came to know about the electricity energy reconnection in the premises of the complainant only on 23.9.15, as it was disconnected on 4/2003 and the complainant was unauthorisedly using electricity without the knowledge of the O.Ps.  Hence the claim of the O.Ps is within the time.   The complainant has cited a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2019(1) CPR,697(NC), which is not applicable in the present case. In view of the above, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.  This issue is answered against the complainant.

Issue No.2.

            In view of the discussions as made in issue no.3, it is held that notice under Aanenxure-5, filed by the complainant was issued by the O.Ps U/S-100(1) of Coded,2004 on 24.11.2015 is proper in consonance with Law governing the field, hence,  there is no cause of action to file the present case.

Issue No.4.

            From the above discussions, this Commission has no hesitation to conclude that as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and the complainant is not entitled to any relief.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

                                                           ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but no cost.  However, the O.Ps are directed to install a new electricity meter in the premises of the complainant as per law.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 26^th day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                      

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                           Member.

                                                                       

                                                                                                

 

 

   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                             President