DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 31st day of January, 2018
C.D Case No. 58 of 2016
Sri Sidheswar Ojha
S/o: Late Bhagabat Ojha
At/Po: Keshpur
Via: Gujidarada
Ps: Bhadrak (R)
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Executive Engineer, NESCO
Bhadrak North Division, Bypass
At/Po/Dist: Bhadrak
2. S.D.O, Electrical, NESCO
Sec- II, Bypass
Bhadrak
Po/Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: In person
For the O.Ps: Sri D. Nayak & Others
Date of hearing: 24.05.2017
Date of order: 31.01.2018
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
The dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The facts as disclosed in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a bonfide consumer of NESCO under Bhadrak North Electrical Division who has been consuming electricity since 1980 vide consumer No- BZ 2148 (subsequently renumbered as 421413120168). The complainant has alleged that on 17.12.2014 when he was absent at home, a team consisting of five members under the leadership of SDO, Electrical Bhadrak forcibly entered into my dwelling house, without caring for sincere request of my wife who was alone at home, and conducted a search covering every nook and corner of the house but did not find any objectionable use of electricity. Finally the said team took away the meter by breaking the seal despite vehement opposition of complainant’s wife and even one of them did not hesitate to push her back. When the complainant returned home at about 8 PM, learnt everything from his wife and moved to the office of JE & SDO at Bhadrak on the next day but none of them were made available on the said date. In spite of several visits to the office of the SDO Electrical Bhadrak but could not get the O.Ps available in the office. In such a situation, finding no other way, complainant filed a petition with the Collector Bhadrak and also filed FIR with the officer in charge of Gujidarada outpost but no one considered his grievance. But unfortunately, after nine months of incident on 24.09.2015, complainant received a bill amounting Rs 29,309/- which was unrealistic as the complainant was very much regular in payment of electricity bills. On having the said bill, complainant immediately met the JE and SDO (O.Ps) and requested them for revision of the bill which was not responded by them and such excess bill continued till filing of the case. In the afore mentioned situation, complainant filed this dispute praying for waiver of the arrear bill amount.
Opposite parties filed written version through advocate in stating that this case is not maintainable in this Forum as there is no cause of action, beyond jurisdiction and suffers from “barred by limitation.” It is further submitted by the O.Ps that the complainant has ignored the special statute, i.e. Electricity Act, 2003 wherein remedy is available. Hence the dispute so filed by the complainant is not maintainable in this Forum. O.Ps have also submitted that they are not deficient in providing proper service to the complainant and the allegations made in the complaint are false and fabricated and the complainant has filed his dispute in order to avoid payment of the arrear dues to the O.Ps. In narrating the real fact, O.Ps stated that the surprise inspection of the premises of complainant was conducted on 18.12.2014 by a team led by SDO, Electrical Bhadrak and observed that the complainant has been utilizing electricity of about one and half kilowatt by hooking from the L.T. pole nearest to his premises in addition to his own connection of one kilo watt. For such unauthorized use of electricity, the O.Ps have communicated an arrear bill under the provisions of Sec- 126 of Electricity Act and final assessment has been communicated under clause 51 of OERC Distribution code, 2004. The complainant, without availing the alternative remedy available under the provisions of Sec- 127 of the Act, has filed this dispute in DCDRF which is an Act of gross violation of the provisions of a special statute. Hence the present dispute is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with cost.
We have gone through the complaint and written version submitted by O.Ps and heard both the parties to this case and observed the following points/issues are important to be discussed in order to arrive at the conclusion.
1. Whether the dispute filed by the complainant is maintainable or not.
2. What is the exact date of conducting inspection of the premises?
3. Whether the assessment made by the O.Ps has been communicated to the complainant.
4. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the arrear dues as claimed by the O.Ps.
I. As regards maintainability of the case O.Ps submitted that after the inspection of the premises was conducted and the complainant was found to have been enjoying electricity by hooking to his premises, a provisional assessment was communicated to complainant on 18.12.2015 directing to appear before the assessment authority on 31.12.2014 which was not complied by the complainant as a result of which the O.Ps issued final assessment letter bearing No- 25 dt. 18.01.2015 directing complainant to pay Rs 29,309/- as arrear energy bill failing which actions deem proper would be initiated. The complainant, if at all aggrieved, could have raised the matter before the Grievance Redressal Forum, Balasore but instead of doing so, the complainant has filed the case in DCDRF ignoring the provisions of a special statute where alternative remedy is available.
On the other hand complainant, in encountering the statement of O.Ps, submitted that the O.Ps, although conducted the inspection in his absence, have not communicated any provisional assessment or final assessment letter as per rule but communicated an arrear bill of Rs 29,309/- after nine months from the date of conducting inspection. Had the O.Ps intimated the complainant about the provisional and final assessment letter, complainant would have moved to Grievance Redressal Forum, Balasore, the appellate Forum as an alternative. Despite repeated oral and written submissions of complainant requesting revision of the bill, when O.Ps did not pay any heed to his grievance, the complainant finding no other way, raised the matter in DCDRF Bhadrak for adjudication of the case. Hence the non-response to the grievance of the complainant by the O.Ps, despite repeated requests, amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore the case is maintainable in the consumer Forum and the objection, on the ground of maintainability, raised by the O.Ps are not sustainable.
Heard both the complainant & O.Ps and perused materials on record. On scrutiny of material evidence furnished by the O.Ps, no where it is proved that the assessment orders were communicated to the complainant as claimed in the written version rather it is believed that no correspondence regarding hooking and unauthorized power consumption was made by the O.Ps to the complainant. Had the complainant avoided the O.Ps on receipt of limitation and ignored to avail the privileges of alternative remedy available under provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, the question of maintainability would have come. In the above premises this issue is decided in saying that the present dispute is maintainable in this Forum. Hence the objection raised by the O.Ps is not sustainable.
II. The complainant admitted that the O.Ps have conducted inspection on 17.12.2014 at about 11 AM when he was absent at home and he has met the SDO and JE in their office on 18.12.2014. When the SDO did not allow him to his office chamber, being disappointed, complainant filed an FIR with the police in Gujidarada Outpost on 18.12.2014 by R.P with Ad and also reported the matter to Collector & District Magister, Bhadrak for remedial measures as some of the staff in the inspection team have misbehaved his wife. Hence it is evident that the said inspection was conducted by the O.Ps on 17.12.2014.
O.Ps objected in stating that their record shows that the inspection of the premises of the complainant was taken up on 18.12.2014. Hence the complainant is taking false plea about the inspection was conducted on 17.12.2014 as he was present at home at the time of inspection and refused to receive the copy of the spot verification report.
Heard the complainant as well as O.Ps and perused materials on record. The provisional assessment made on the spot shows to have been prepared and issued on 18.12.2014 at 11:45 AM which is signed by three members of the team at the bottom of the provisional assessment letter. It is very funny to note that the date mentioned just beneath the signatures of team members in all cases is 17.12.2104. Hence it is crystal clear that the O.Ps have taken false plea in the written version. This particular point is based on false hood. In view of the facts as above, the objection raised by the O.Ps is not sustainable.
III. O.Ps claimed to have communicated the provisional assessment letter on 18.12.2014 to the complainant fixing the date on 31.12.2014 for hearing but he did not turn up to attend the office of the assessing authority as a result of which final assessment was made and issued on 17.01.2015. On the contrary the complainant vehemently opposed the submission of the O.Ps and claimed to have not received any assessment letter from the O.Ps. If at all, O.Ps have issued such letter to the complainant, they have to prove it with concrete evidence.
Heard both the parties and perused materials on record. It is evident from the documents that O.Ps have prepared the assessment letter and put the letter number and date to prove to have issued the same but no evidence is made available as to the mode of transmission of those letters either by post or by personal services. As the OP claims to have not received the said assessment letter and O.Ps have failed to adduce any evidence, it is finally concluded that the O.Ps have manufactured the documents at the later stage to furnish the same in the Forum but not issued the same to the complainant. Secondly if it is taken as granted that the O.Ps have issued the letter of provisional and final assessment letter and the complainant has received the said letters, why they took a prolonged period of nine months to serve the arrear bill amounting Rs 29,309/- upon the complainant. Hence it is believed that no such letter was issued to complainant and the arrear bill so served upon the complainant is not genuine.
IV. The complainant, in course of hearing, submitted that he had been paying the electricity bill amount regularly and has never defaulted in payment of such bills. Had the complainant defaulted in payment of such bills, the question of arrear bill would have arisen. No such instantace the O.Ps can cite about nonpayment of current bills by the complainant regularly. O.Ps, on the other hand, submitted that the arrear bill is the result/outcome of unauthorized consumption of electricity about 2 KW by hooking for more than a year. That is why the surprise inspection team led by SDO, BNED, Bypass Bhadrak has served bill upon complainant against the unauthorized/illegal consumption of power and has no relation with regular payment. Hence the bill so served upon the complainant for an amount of Rs 29,309/- is genuine and complainant is liable to pay the bill amount.
Heard both the parties and perused materials on record. It is evident from available materials on record that the evidence furnished by O.Ps is believed to have been manufactured and the bill so served upon the complainant does not bear any meaning. Hence the complainant is not liable to pay the arrear bill amount.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is held that there is deficiency of service and the arrear bill so served is not genuine and the complainant is entitled to get exemption of arrear dues. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps and in the circumstances without cost. O.Ps are directed to exempt the arrear dues of Rs 29,309/- to the complainant without second thought and the amount be deducted from the demand ledger within 30 days from the date of issue of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 31st January, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
