DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; BHADRAK

………………….

C.D.Case No.40 of 2015

Sri Janmejaya Mohapatra, aged 24 years

S/o: Sri Pradeep Mohapatra,

Vill: Rajmukundapur,

PO: Rajmukundapur, Via: Arnapal,

PS:Bhadrak(R), Dist:Bhadrak

                                          ………………………..Complainant

                        (Vrs.)

1.         Executive Engineer, NESCO,

            At:Akhandalmani Chhak,

            PO:Bhadrak, PS:Bhadrak(T),

            Dist:Bhadrak

2.         S.D.O., Electrical, Asurali Sub-Division,

            PO:Asuralia, PS:Dhusuri,

            Via:Kothar, Dist:Bhadrak                                           ………………………….Opp.Parties

Order No.17 dt.09.11.2015:

            The case of the Complainant is that his grandfather Ratnakar Mohapatra was a consumer of electricity bearing consumer No.BZ-1077 under the O.Ps since 1979.After demise of his grandfather, the Complainant became the consumer in practice but in the ledger and records of O.Ps, name of late Ratnakar Mohapatra has been reflected. Sri Pradeep Mohapatra, the father of the Complainant has been paying the dues of electricity according to the bills prepared by O.Ps. 

            On 22.09.2014 the Complainant applied for connection of electricity to his Poultry Farm under Allied Agricultural Activity (AAA) category. Accordingly, the J.E.(Elect.), Arnapal Section granted the application and forwarded the application  to O.P.No.2. The feasibility report was called for. After the feasibility report was prepared by O.P.No.2 the same was handed over to Complainant. During enquiry, the J.E.(Elect.), Arnapal had made a field enquiry  with regard to the farm and prepared a spot map.  Then a V.R.calculation for AAA category was made by the J.E., Arnapal on 22.09.2014 and it was recommended by O.P.No.2 on 24.09.2014. Further, on the same date on 22.09.2014 a technical and a commercial feasibility report was prepared and submitted in the office of O.P.No.2 in respect of consumership of the father of the Complainant. The energy service connection estimation was sanctioned by the J.E.,Arnapal. So also the concerned Veterinary Surgeon visited the spot and prepared a feasibility report in respect of the said Farm. Then the Complainant was directed by O.P.No.2 to deposit Rs.375/- by means of treasury challan. Accordingly, the Complainant deposited the said amount on 16.07.2014. After completion of all formalities, the O.P.No.1 debarred the Complainant in getting electricity to his farm. Thereafter, the concerned Advocate of O.Ps on 15.01.2015 served notice claiming outstanding revenue amounting to Rs.55,373.69 paise. The Complainant denied all the allegations made against him and replied that had the O.Ps furnished vivid and rectified/corrected calculations towards the outstanding revenue, he would have paid the same. Complainant also submitted a representation before the O.P.No.1 on 09.02.2015 but the O.P.No.1 threw the representation and misbehaved the Complainant. According to Complainant single phase electric connection is required to his Farm and there is no necessity of installation of new pole. It is not coming under the purview of O.P.No.1. This is purely work of O.P.No.2 and the J.E..  Such acts & omissions on the part of O.Ps put the Complainant into financial loss and serious mental agony. So alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps the Complainant filed this case on 02.04.2015 praying for a direction to O.Ps to provide electric connection to the poultry farm as soon as possible and to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- towards the loss sustained by the Complainant.

            O.Ps filed written version stating therein that the Complainant is not an electricity consumer. The Complainant had submitted application before the competent authority for a new electricity connection to his newly installed poultry farm. In the feasibility report, SDO, Asurali & JE, Arnapal have clearly mentioned that Rs.56,609/- is outstanding against the consumer No.BZ-1077 recorded in the name of his grandfather, Sri Ratnakar Mohapatra. After detecting such arrear electricity bill, it was requested to clear the arrear as per OERC guidelines Regulation 10(i) of Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution(Condition of Supply) Code,2004 which clearly provides that “if the application in respect of an earlier agreement executed in his/her name or in the name of his spouse, parents or in the name of a Firm or Company with which he/she was associated either as a partner, director, or Managing Director, is in arrear of electricity dues or other dues for the same premises payable to the licencess, the applicant for supply shall not be allowed by the engineer until the arrears are paid in full. In view of the above facts & circumstance, the case is not maintainable as the Complainant has filed this case without clean hand and is also not a consumer.

            We have heard the Ld.Counsel appearing for Complainant and the authorized representative of O.Ps.

            The Complainant has filed series of documents in support of his case including electricity bill for the month of July,2015, August,2015 and September,2015 showing consumption of  10 units, 96 units and 36 units respectively. He has also filed M.R dt.27.10.2015 and 31.10.2015 towards payment of current electricity dues from July,2015 to September,2015 amounting to Rs.200/- and Rs.370/- to O.Ps. Similarly, O.Ps have filed the statement showing revision of bill from 04/2004 to 07/2013 and 08/2014 to 09/2014, raised on load factor basis i.e. 144 units per month. O.Ps have also filed details of billing statement on 19.08.2015 for the period from November,2001 to April,2015.

            Having heard both sides and going through the documents available on record, it is found that the Complainant Janmejaya Mohapatra, the grandson of Ratnakar Mohapatra on 22.09.2014 had applied before the O.Ps for electricity supply to his Poultry Farm under Allied Agricultural Activity (AAA) category. After completion of all formalities, the O.P.No.1 directed the Complainant to clear the arrear outstanding of Rs.56,609/- lying against his late grandfather. Admittedly, after death of Ratnakar Mohapatra, his successor Sri Pradeep Mohapatra, the father of the Complainant is availing power supply against the said consumer No.BZ-1077 paying electricity charges to O.Ps. As the bills were raised on average/load factor basis, after installation of new meter on 05.10.2014, the Complainant requested the O.Ps to provide him revised bill. As such, neither revised bill was served on the Complainant nor electricity was provided to the poultry Farm of the Complainant for which the Complainant filed this case on 02.04.2015 praying for  connection of electricity to his new poultry Farm and for payment of compensation.

            According to O.Ps new meter has been installed in the premises of the consumer No.BZ-1077 on 10/2004 and thereafter billing is being made on actual consumption basis. However, after revision of the bills for the disputed period from April,2004, the Complainant is liable to pay Rs.30,048.36 paise  till April,2015. O.Ps have revised the bill @ 72 units per month as per circular/order of the Management. Billing statement filed by the O.Ps goes to show that  from November,2001 till September,2014 billing has been made on load factor basis @ 144 units per month and  216 units for the month of August,2014 and September,2014.So also after installation of new meter on 05.10.2014,  Complainant’s consumption shows 35 units for October,2014, 54 units for November,2014, 70 units for December,2014, 94 units for January,2015, 102 units for February,2015, 135 units for March,2015 and 159 units for April,2015.  Billing Statement submitted by the O.Ps reveals that average charges have been levied against consumer No.BZ-1077 from October,2001 till September,2014 showing the status of meter as defective.  However, keeping in mind the date of commencement of per OERC Regulation,2004, the O.Ps have revised bill of the Complainant from April,2004 @ 72 units per month as per circular/order of the Management ignoring the actual average consumption of the Complainant after installation of new meter. Regulation 56((1) of OERC, Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code,2004  provides that reads. 

Regulation-56(1)- Supply and installation of meters and Cut-outs/MCBs/CBs “The licensee shall supply the meter (unless the consumer elects to supply the same), cut-out/MCB/CB/load limiter to consumers at the time of providing new service connection or at any other time as required”.

 It is thus found that while extending period of revision or other matters the O.Ps have resorted to the Regulation of OERC,2004 and declined to revise bill prior to April,2004 and  on the other hand while calculating consumption ignored the Regulation,2004 of OERC and accepted the  circular/order of Management. It is really astonishing what prevented the O.Ps to replace the defective meter for a pretty long period when Reg-56(1) of OERC,2004 empowers them to do so  and now decline to revise the bill on average 3 months consumption after installation of meter?  Therefore, the bill revised by the O.Ps for the period from April,2004 to April,2015 amounting to Rs.30,048.36 on 72 units per month is found to be erroneous and it needs to be revised taking into consideration the average 3(Three) months consumption after reinstallation of the meter. Accordingly, it is ordered;

O R D E R

            In the result, the complaint is allowed on contest against the O.Ps in part.  The O.Ps are directed to serve the revised bill against consumer No. BZ-1077 for the period from April,2004 till September,2014  within one month of receipt of this order taking into consideration the average 3(Three) months  consumption  after reinstallation of the meter.  O.Ps are further directed to receive the revised bill amount from the Complainant in 5(five) instalments and to provide electricity connection to the poultry Farm of the Complainant on receipt of 1st instalment amount. Under the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.