Orissa

Cuttak

CC/67/2019

Suprava Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer,CESU - Opp.Party(s)

R Nayak

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.67/2019

Suprava Nayak,

W/O:Rabi Narayan Nayak,

At:Shakti Nagar,Plot No.11,Link Road,

P.S:Badambadi,Town/Dist:Cuttack-753012.                                       ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Executive Engineer,

CESU,Cuttack City Distribution Division No.2,

At:Badambadi,Cuttack-753012.

 

2.       The Assistant Manager,(Commerce),

Electrical Sub-Division No.II,

At:CESU Colony,Badanbadi, Cuttack-753012.

                

 

3.       The Sub-Divisional Officer,

(CESU) Electrical Sub-Division No.II,

At:CESU Colony,Badanbadi, Cuttack-753012.

 

4.      The Junior Engineer(Electrical),

Section,At:Dolamundai,Cuttack-753001.                                  ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    25.06.2019

Date of Order:   28.10.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. R.Nayak  ,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :                Self.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                        

            Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she is a consumer vide consumer no.02184318/9-M-009/110 in addition to two other electrical connections from the O.Ps since 1992.  On 17.7.18, O.P No.2 came with a group of persons consisting of 4 to 5 in order to check the electrical meter and supplier of the complainant and produced an authorisation.  They had broken the seals of the meter box alongwith seal tag around the meter but had mentioned in the verification report relating to Consumer No. 02184318/9-M-009/110 that the seals of the meter were found to be absent and that scratch marks were found there.  The said report was received with objection by the complainant.  The meter reader had shown the said meter to be O.K in all the bills of the complainant including the bill for the month of July,2018  which was made just four days prior to the said checking of the O.P No.2.  The electric line to the said meter bearing consumer no. 02184318/9-M-009/110 was thereafter disconnected without any intimation to the complainant.  Though the complainant had tried to contact O.P no.2, O.P no.2 had not responded.  Ultimately on 19.7.18, the complainant had met O.P no.2 and wanted to know the reason of disconnection of the electrical supply to her house.  O.P no.2 on the other hand, handed over the copy of provisional assessment notice bearing no.502 to the complainant with an amount of Rs.96,000/- as penal charge reflecting the date as 17.7.18.  The complainant was authorised to consume a load of 4 K.W electrical energy and was paying the electrical bills regularly even for the month of July 2018.  The bill for the month of June 2018 though was not issued to the complainant, it indicated the consumption of 330 units which, according to the complainant, is false and incorrect.  The bill for the month of July 2018 did not reflect any arrear dues therein.  According to the complainant, her case was taken up at the National Lok Adalat on 18.12.18 which was compounded U/S-152 of Electricity Act,2003 but still her electric connection was not restored for which she had filed a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat(Public Utility Service) Cuttack vide PLA Case no.367 of 2018 and on 28.12.18 order was passed in the said PLA case thereby directing the O.Ps to reconnect the disconnected line of the complainant forthwith  on deposit of Rs.150/- towards reconnection charge.  The complainant had thereby deposited a sum of Rs.150/- on 31.12.18 and thereafter a new meter was installed by the O.Ps at her house on 4.1.19.  But surprisingly on 11.2.19 a bill was issued by the O.Ps to her showing arrear amount of Rs.9396.65p.  The complainant has further mentioned in her complaint petition that when the O.Ps had claimed a penal amount of Rs.96,418/- from her on 17.7.18, she had deposited an amount of Rs.2986/- on 19.7.18 vide receipt no.TDO CESU 180315453 but the said amount has not been adjusted from the bills of her new meter.  On 1.2.19, the complainant had made a representation to the O.Ps for rectifying the bill.  On 23.2.19 the complainant had paid the amount of electricity charges upto 11.2.19.  According to the O.Ps through their bills for the months of March,April,May and June had included the false arrear amount.  They had reflected an amount of Rs.9376.51p in the bill for the month of March,2019 and an amount of Rs.9346.71p for the months of April,May and June of 2019.  She has further alleged that she was not allowed to avail the rebate amount of Rs.110/- within the period effective from February 2019 to June 2019 even though she had paid the actual bill amount within the rebate period.  When she received the bill for the month of April 2019, she had issued a legal notice to the O.Ps requesting therein to rectify the incorrect electric bill and to delete therefrom the false arrear amount of Rs.9376/-.  Thereafter, when she could not get any relief from the O.Ps, she had to approach before this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps for non-issuance of such incorrect arrear amount and to adjust Rs.2980/- which was paid by her and also to adjust an amount of Rs.110/- which is the rebate amount effective from February 2019 to June 2019 and also to get an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards her mental agony, harassment and suffering.  She has also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            In order to prove her case she has filed copies of several documents.

2.         On the other hand, all the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.

            According to them, the Departmental Meter and Relay Testing(MRT) squad in presence of the complainant on 17.7.18 detected that the meter of the complainant had no seals and rather scratch-marks were found on the said meter.  Thus, according to them, the complainant /consumer had manipulated the meter every month for which the meter status was declared to be tampered and action was to be taken U/S-126 and 135 of the Electricity Act,2003.  The actual load of the complainant could not be calculated since because the consumer/complainant had not cooperated.  As per Sec-135(1A) the power supply of the consumer/complainant was disconnected and FIR lodged before the Energy Police Station on 18.7.18 against the complainant.  A G.R Case bearing no.33/2018 was thus initiated against the complainant on the allegation of theft of electricity.  The provisional assessment amount of Rs.96,418.15p with a show cause notice was sent to the complainant on 17.7.18 thereby asking for her personal hearing but she had not turned up.  Thus, the Assessing Officer had passed a final assessment order dt.16.8.18 which was served to the consumer/complainant.  The O.Ps have further mentioned in their written version that the ‘Meter Reader’ is not a technical person to verify the status of the meter but only to record the reading of the meter in the preparation of monthly/bi-monthly electricity bills.  They admit that the case of the complainant/consumer was taken up before the National Lok Adalat and was compounded there for an amount of Rs.22,000/- which was paid by the complainant/consumer and after order of the PLA Court, the complainant had paid the reconnection charges for which the disconnected electricity line was restored and bills were provided to her on actual meter reading basis.  The allegation of the complainant as regards to the charge made with effect from August,2018 to Decembver,2018 was only MMFC charged as per clause-84 of OERC Regulation which provides that “every consumer during continuance of agreement under Regulation-15, thereby liable to pay minimum monthly charges even if no electricity is consumed for any reason whatsoever or supply has been disconnected due to default of the consumer”.  Thus, the O.Ps have mentioned that as per the average consumption pattern, the electricity bills of the complainant/consumer was charged from 31.12.18 to 4.1.19 and from 4.1.19 to 11.2.19 the charge was as per the actual meter reading of the complainant/consumer.  The rebate as claimed has already been allowed in the monthly electricity bills and as such the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition.

            They have filed copies of abstract from their ledger with effect from 1/19 to 8/19 thereby reflecting therein the arrear of the complainant/consumer.  They have also filed a copy of the Odisha Gazette Notification reflecting the OERC rules.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

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

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

Issue no. ii.

            Out of three issues as framed here in this case, Issue no.ii appears to be the pertinent issue.  Thus the said issue is taken up first for consideration.

            The complainant alleges that O.P no.2 with a group of four to five persons had entered into her premises on 17.7.18 with the plea to check her electricity meter and they had broken the seals of her electrical meter but they had falsely remarked that the seals were tampered previously.  This allegation of the complainant who is a consumer of electricity is not supported with any cogent evidence.  The allegation as  made by the complainant that the O.P no.2 who happens to be the Asst. Manager(Commerce)Electrical Sub-Division,Cuttack  had come in a group four to five persons and had broken the seals of her electric meter.  The animosity if any in between the complainant and the said O.P no.2 is also found to be absent from the evidence as available here in this case.  Thus, such allegation as raised by the complainant appears to be only the bald and stray statement which lacks strict proof.  One thing is for sure as it is made out that the complainant admits about the broken seals of her electricity meter in to her house.  To defend herself, she has raised aspersion against O.P no.2 that it is O.P no.2 with his men who had broken the seals of her electric meter.  When she is unable to prove that O.P no.2 or his accompaniers had broken the seals of her electric meter and when there was no seals on her electric meter, inference can easily be drawn that it is she herself liable as because the remark of the meter- reader that the meter is O.K do not suffice since because he is a non-technical person and his duty is to record the meter-reading and thus while evaluating the evidence as available from either sides in this score, it is noticed that the breaking of seals of the electric meter of the complainant was rather the work of the complainant.  The detailed description as made in the copies of the abstract of the ledger of the O.Ps as filed goes to show that infact there is no anomaly in the calculation of the tariff towards consumption of electricity by the complainant and that those are rather found to be correctly done.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in service of the O.Ps here in this case as alleged.  Accordingly this issue is answered.

Issues no.i & iii.

            From the discussions as made above, it is concluded that the complaint case is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 28^th day of   October,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                               Member