C.D. APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2005

C.D. APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2005

        Mr A.K.Das, learned counsel files Vakalatnama in  favour of appellants in CDA 267 of 2005 which is accepted and kept on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeal. None appears for the respondent.

2.      Since both the appeals arise out of two impugned orders    passed by the learned District Forum, Angul   in C.D. Case Nos. 22 of 2002 and 24 of 2002 respectively but the occurrence is same. Therefore, both the appeals were heard together. This common order shall govern the result of both the appeals.

3.      These appeals are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

4.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant  had taken two separate connections one for domestic purpose vide consumer No. 1834 with connected load of 3 KW and another for lift irrigation purpose bearing Consumer No. ALI-0030 with connected load of  2 KW. It is alleged by the complainant that in October, 2001, OP No.2 enhanced the connected load reclassifying the category from domestic to commercial in absence of the complainant. Accordingly, bill was issued and the complainant paid Rs.5,616.80 for the month of November- December, 2002 on commercial tariff. It is further alleged that  on 25.2.2002 the OPs verified the premises of the complainant and enhanced the connected load from 3 KW to 14 KW in respect of domestic connection and also raised the load factor from 2 KW to 6 KW in respect of connection to the lift irrigation point. Thereafter, complainant received  two penal bills amounting to Rs. 1,59,076 and Rs.24,694/- in respect of both the connections respectively. Without any service of show cause on the complainant,  the OPs enhanced the load factor and for that the complainant alleged before the OPs. Since no action was taken on the complaint of the complainant, the consumer complaint was filed.

5.      OPs filed written version stating that on 26.2.2002  there was verification of the premises of the complainant and accordingly, they found that the complainant was  consuming power more than the connected load unauthorizedly. Therefore, they imposed the penal bill. So, there is no any deficiency in service on their part.

6.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                   “xxx   xxx   xxx

The opp.parties are directed to cancel the penal bills slapped against the complainant in respect of consumer No.321-A-2834 and consumer No. ALI-0030.The opp.parties may, however, conduct verification denovo as per law for reclassification.

xxx   xxx   xxx

The opp.parties are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for disconnection of power supply basing on the disputed verification dt. 26.2.2002.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  learned District Forum committed error in law by not going through the OERC Code, 1998  for enhancement of connected load after due verification. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned orders by allowing the appeals.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      The verification report is available on record in FA No. 267 of 2005. On perusal of the same it appears that the load has been only increased but there is no any proceeding u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Regulation 82 of OERC (Conditions of Supply) Code, 1998 is as follows:-

                   “xxx   xxx  xxx

82. Reclassification of Consumer -  If it is found that a consumer has been classified in a particular category erroneously or the purpose of supply as mentioned in the agreement has changed or the consumption of power has exceeded the limit of that category or any order of reduction or enhancement of contract demand has been obtained, the engineer may reclassify him under appropriate category after issuing notice to him to execute a fresh agreement on the basis of the altered classification or  modified contract demand, if the consumer does not take steps within the time indicated in the notice to execute the fresh agreement, the engineer may, after issuing a clear seven days show-cause notice and after conspiring his explanation, if any, may disconnect the supply of power.”

10.    The aforesaid provisions are very clear to show that if there is any reclassification requires after due verification for enhancement of the connected load, there should be agreement to be executed. In the instant case, in stead of agreement to be executed,  the penal amount has been  assessed. The aforesaid provision never allow  the licensee to ask for peal amount recovered from the customer. Also there is no disconnection of electric supply though Regulation - 82 allow the licensee to disconnect the supply. It appears that Regulation – 82 has not been followed by the appellant. Therefore, we are of the view that deficiency in service has been proved by the complainant.

11.    In the result, the impugned orders  are confirmed. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.