DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 24th day of November, 2017
C.D Case No. 59 of 2015
Sri Basanta Kumar Palai
S/o: Late Pitamber Palai
Vill: Toranpada
Po: Goramati
Ps: Bhadrak (T)
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Executive Engineer, Electrical
NESCO, North Electrical Division
Bypass
Dist: Bhadrak
2. S.D.O, Electrical
Division No- II, NESCO
Bypass
Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: Sri Nishikanta Nayak & Others
For the O.Ps No. 1 & 2: Sri M. Dey
Date of hearing: 28.01.2017
Date of order: 24.11.2017
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint against the O.Ps in respect of the deficiency of service caused by them against the complainant is to the effect that the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps. The complainant deposited Rs 14,193 on dt. 02.11.2002 vide receipt No. 993500 according to the estimate of the O.Ps. After depositing the said amount the O.Ps did not connect the electricity for domestic use for dwelling house of the complainant. After repeated request was made to the O.Ps, when the O.Ps did not turn up the complainant initiate a CD Case vide No. 79/2003 before the D.C.D.R.F, Bhadrak against the O.Ps. After adjudication of the CD Case, the D.C.D.R.F, Bhdarak awarded Rs 500/- for the deficiency of service of the O.Ps. The said Rs 500/- was awarded to the O.Ps for compensation of the deficiency of service. The O.Ps restored the electricity connection to the complainant without neutral phase the bulbs are deemed. After several request made by the complainant to the O.Ps, still the O.Ps did not attribute any importance connection of the complainant, as well as the O.Ps did not prepare any bill with regard to the consumption of the complainant. The complainant informed to all the O.Ps regarding the low voltage light & the defects should have been removed by the O.Ps but no action was taken. The concerned transformer was continuously burning & lastly it was burnt on 12.06.2013. As a result of the said burning it was found that the meter was not properly working & preparing wrong bills. On a sudden two numbers of bill had been served on 26.01.2014 the amount to Rs 482338/- another was on 14.12.2014 which was amount to Rs 48695/-. The complainant has alleged that on 24.02.2015 the amount to Rs 5811430/- till December 2014 was illegal. Still then the O.Ps disconnected the electric line on December 2014 & demanded Rs 58114. 30p/-. The O.Ps has also threatened to the complainant to disconnect the electricity connection. The complainant has also alleged that the bill was prepared amount to Rs 48695/- & Rs 58114.30p/-. The said disconnection notice was served due to the arrear but the arrear bills were defective. In this way the complainant approached to the O.Ps again & again that it was illegal bills but on 24.02.2015 the O.Ps demanded Rs 58114.30p/- as the arrears otherwise the domestic electricity connection of the complainant would be disconnected. So the O.Ps have caused deficiency of service towards the complainant. The complainant has sought for the reliefs of waiving out the arrear money, which is amount to Rs 581130/-. The complainant has also sought for the relief of reconnection & Rs 10,000/- be awarded to the O.Ps for cost of the litigation.
The complainant has also submitted some Xerox copies of some documents as follows:-
1. Bill prepared by the O.Ps on dt. 26.01.2014 for the month of December 2014.
2. Bill prepared for the month January 2014.
On the other hand the O.Ps have filed their written version such as follows:-
That the O.Ps have denied the consumer ship of the complainant & in the office record the complainant’s name is not found as a consumer. Rather the name of Pitamber Palai is found as a consumer bearing consumer No. BZ-72712 under the domestic category having CD 1.5 KW. The O.Ps have also challenged the maintainability of this case with regard to the limitation as per Sec 24 (A) of C.P Act. The O.Ps have also denied that initial power supply was given in the year 2002 without neutral phase. The O.ps have never informed to the O.Ps before taking shelter under this Forum regarding his grievance for which no deficiency of service has been caused to him. More over the O.Ps has denied all the averments made by the complainant made in the complaint.
The fact is that the consumer whose name is found is office record is the Late father this complainant. In the present situation there is also the electricity connection & the petitioner is consuming electricity. On dt. 17.08.2015 the premises of the petitioner is verified by the OP No. 2 with the J.E & it was detected that the complainant is availing power supply through a meter & the running condition & load is within the CD. The CMR is 2248 unit whereas per office record the reading of the month of June 2007 there was 517 units of this meter. Meter reading is advanced which leads to prove the use of electricity the copy of SVR in annexed (Annexure- 1). The OERC the exercise of this power conferred on it by Sec 181, clause- 2 of the Act 2003 makes the regulation which is known as OERC code 2004 to govern distribution, supply of electricity, the powers, functions & obligation of supplier and the right & obligation of the consumers. In view of this code, it is the obligation of the consumer to submit a complaint before the O.Ps if any dispute arises in connection with electricity. It is here important to mention the regulation- 91 of the code, 2004 wherein, it is clearly mention that, “in the event of any dispute in the billed amount, the consumer may lodge complaint before the designated officer as determined by the licensee & pay the average of last six months consumption or the billed amount whichever is less within due date pending settlement the dispute the licensee shall resolve the dispute or communicate its decision with reasons to the consumer within a maximum period of one month. ” In spite of this under Sec 42 (5) of the special Act i.e the Electricity Act, 2003, a special Forum is established which is known as Grievances Redressal Forum (GRF) for adjudication of the dispute specifically for electricity. But the complainant has not done so. In this regard the O.Ps have cited two decisions of the Apex Court regarding the maintainability CD Forum in respect of the maintainability & jurisdiction. Hence they have prayed for the dismissal of this CD Case. The O.Ps have filed documents in support of them.
1. Xerox copy of the Spot verification report. Anx- 1
2. Disconnection notice served on 03.11.2006 vide old A/c No. BZ-72712, Consumer No. 421413070480.
3. Statement of accounts two sheets.
4. Representation made by the complainant to the OP No. 1 on 15.03.2014.
5. Receipt of Regd. post.
6. The legal heir certificate.
7. Comparison report of both the meters (old & new) on dt. 25.03.2004 one sheet.
8. Notice to the complainant on 24.02.2105 for clearing the arrears one sheet.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint, the documents filed by the complainant & the written version as well as the documents filed by the O.Ps. The complaint which is made by the complainant is lacking the consumer number & cause of action. The complainant has failed to file the relevant documents in support of him. The complainant’s name has not been found in the office record of the O.Ps. Rather the dead father’s name was found. It was the primary duty of the complainant to inform the O.Ps by means of written representation that his father was dead, his name should have deleted & the complainant name should have been inserted in the office register so the complainant has not done so, as his name is not found as a consumer having his consumer number in the office record. So the complainant is not deserved to be a consumer.
The complainant has not filed adequate No’s of relevant documents to prove his case, he has filed only two No’s of bills which are not appropriate to grant him the relief. In this case the relief cannot be granted in absence of the consumer’s number. The complainant also failed to prove or to substantiate his case, as well as he has also failed to prove how to wave out the amount Rs 58,114.30p/- and this Forum is not the competent one for declaration of illegal amount. The civil Court has the jurisdiction declaration of the same.
In the matter of Sri Biswanath Mukharjee Vs W.B State Electricity Board, the National Commission in R.P No. 2991 of 2006 (2012 NCJ 285 (NS)) has clearly mentioned that, if an alternative remedy is available for a has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the same matter, the observation of Apex Court has been referred in Civil Appeal No. 14421 of 1996 (CBSE Ltd. Vs. Sri N.M Banka & others) in which the Court observed that, the correct course for a consumer with a dispute regarding the correctness of the electricity meter or of the billed electricity consumption would be applied to the designated authority under the special Act. In this case, the complainant has not adopted that course and instead of choosing for approaching the District Forum. After considering the facts and the law involved in this case, it is held that the complainant has not come to this Forum clean handed. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint is and the same be dismissed on contest without merit & without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 24th November, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
