Orissa

Cuttak

CC/6/2022

Rama Chandra Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer,Cuttack Electrical Division - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jul 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.06/2022

              1.         Rama Chandra Sahu,

S/O: Kapil Sahu.

 

2.       Dibakar Sahu,

          S/O: Rama Chandra Sahu.

 

           Both are residence of Vill:Sisua,

           P.O:Bairoi,P.S:Olatpur,Dist:Cuttack.                 ... Complainants.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Executive Engineer,

Cuttack Electrical Division,

At:Jobra,P.O:College Square,

                  PS-: Malgodown,Dist: Cuttack

 

2.       The Sub-Divisional Officer,Electrical,

Gopalpur Sub-Division,TPCODL,

                  At/Po-Gopalpur,PS-Sadar,

                  Dist:Cuttack-754002

3.       The Sectional Manager,Electrical,TPCODL,

Adaspur Electrical Section,

                At/Po-Adaspur,PS-Olatpur,

                Dist-Cuttack.                                                                       ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    08.12.2022

Date of Order:  12.07.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. A.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps                :               S.D.O.,Gopalpur Electrical Sub-Division.

           

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                       

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that they are father and son and are consumers of the O.Ps bearing No.20702134.  They were running a hotel at Bairoi Square since from November,2017 onwards and had obtained electricity connection for their business purpose.  They had informed the O.Ps to change the electrical supply to commercial purpose even, to which the O.Ps had not responded.  On 13.12.2017 the O.Ps verified physically the electrical connection and consumption of the complainants where they found that the consumer has changed the category from ‘DOM’ to GPS and load factor is from 1 Kw. to 3 Kw.   It is reflected in the inspection report no.207036 dt.13.12.2017.  The Assessing Officer of the O.Ps had finalised the assessed amount to be of Rs.22,000/-.  On 19.1.2018 complainant no.2 had paid the said amount and had obtained money receipt.  On the said day i.e.,on 19.1.2018 the complainants had applied for change of the category from “Domestic” to “GPS” and on 25.9.2019 the O.Ps had verified the meter, also had calculated the load details vide MVR No.4861.  It is further alleged by the complainants that the O.Ps had calculated the energy consumption as per “GPS” category after verification of the meter but during December,2019 the O.Ps had reflected the mistake in the electric bill on 4.1.2020 for which complainant no.2 had given complaint to the O.Ps.  During the Covid-19 Pandemic situation since there was loss of business, the complainants had closed their hotel business with effect from December,2020 till 12.7.2021 and accordingly O.P no.3 had disconnected the electrical connection from the premises of the complainants.  On 12.7.2021 with an intent to start the business again, complainant no.2 had applied for reconnection by paying the required amount of money to the O.Ps.  On 8.12.2021 again O.P no.3 with his team physically verified the meter of the complainants and thereafter had submitted a report bearing no.36541 that the power supply as availed by the complainants was for commercial purposes for their hotel (Maa Narayani Family Hotel) even if tariff was of domestic.  So again on 10.12.2021, O.P no.2 after assessment made a provisional order asking for depositing a sum of Rs.41,205/- by the complainants and had issued a show cause notice to that effect even vide letter no.3545 dt.10.12.21.  After the complainants filed their grievance petition, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deducted from the provisional assessment as made thereby lessening and fixing the amount to be of Rs.31,205/- which the complainants were asked to deposit.  The complainants were also asked to deposit the said amount in instalment basis and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the first instalment or else the electrical connection would be disconnected.  Accordingly, complainant no.2 had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 24.12.21.  On 27.12.21 complainant no.2 received a billing statement from O.P no.3 where he could notice that during the Covid-19 shutdown period and also during the disconnection of the electrical supply from the month of December,2020 to 12.7.2021 from their premises,the energy charges were levied whereas the complainants had paid Rs.38,000/- with effect from 12.7.2021 to 2.12.2021.  A sumof Rs.9000/- and more were not reflected in the said billing ledger though the complainants had paid the same even.  According to the complainants, the ledger of the O.Ps  defectively reflected because of wrongly calculated and thereby reflects a faulty amount pending to be paid by the complainants for which the complainants have come up with this case seeking direction to the O.Ps to refund Rs.57,000/- from the energy bill as pending against them and also to direct the O.Ps to pay them a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards their mental agony and loss.

          Together with the complaint petition, the complainants have filed copies of several documents in order to prove their case.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have jointly filed their written version wherein they have stated that the complainants were consumers having consumer no.20702134/80016515043 and though they had taken domestic tariff, they were having commercial outlet by running a hotel business where the calculated load was of 4.5 Kw.  The complainants had not obtained prior permission to run such commercial business.  After physical verification the tariff from “Domestic” to “GPS” was converted and the load was enhanced from 1 Kw. to 3 Kw.,for which the claim amount from the complainants was of Rs.44,700/- out of which the complainants have paid Rs.22,000/- only.  Again on receiving another complaint on physical verification, the O.Pshad found on 25.9.19 that the load factor requires further enhancement from 3 Kw. to 5 Kw. for which after assessment, the complainants were to pay a sum of Rs.41,205/- and again after re-assessment it was noticed that the complainants were to pay a sum of Rs.31,400/- instead of Rs.41,205/- and out of the said amount the complainants had paid only Rs.10,000/-. 

In order to support their stand, the O.Ps have also filed copies of several documents.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

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 by him?

Issue no.i.

Out of the three issues, issue no.i  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments of the complaint petition as well as the written version and so also the copies of all the documents as available, it is noticed that there is dispute in-between the complainants/consumers and the O.Ps as regards to the consumption of electrical energy and the assessment done to that effect.  This financial dispute mainly should have been settled before the appropriate authority and should not have been brought before this Commission.   The complainants should have approached the GRF of the O.Ps, the Ombudsman or to the OERC.  There is a pertinent decision of the Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of U.P Power Corporation Vrs. Anis Ahmed reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court at page-2766 where such type of disputes are not to be dealt with the Consumer Commission rather, the parties are to approach the appropriate authority other than the Consumer Commission.  Accordingly, this Commission holds that the case as filed by the complainants is not maintainable before this Commission.

Issue no.ii&iii.

From the discussions as made above, there is no need to probe into the case of the complainantsfurther and the complainants arethus not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by themhere before this Commission.

                                              ORDER

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 12^th day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                        

                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                    President

 

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member