Orissa

Jajapur

CC/32/2018

Kulamani Nayak. - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.E,Electrical NESCO,Sujanpur. - Opp.Party(s)

L.R.Nayak

29 Feb 2020

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:    1. Shri Jiban ballav Das, President 

                                                                          2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                           3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                                                                                 

                                                      Dated the 29th  day of  February  ,2020.                                  

                                                      C.C.Case No. 32  of 2018

Kulamani Nayak , S/O Late Sukadev  Nayak

Vill. Indaroi , P.O.Erbank ,Via. Sujanpur

P.S. Jajpur Sadar , Dist. Jajpur  

                                                                                                                  ……....Complainant .                                                                                                      

                                                  (Versus)

 

1. J.E,Electrical NESCO, Sujanpur ,At/P.O. Sujanpur ,Dt.Jajpur
2. S.D.O, Electrical NESCO,Bari ,At.Bari, P.O.Bari-Cuttack,P.S. Bari-Ramchandrapur, Dt.Jajpur.
3. Executive Engineer,Electrical,NESCO, Kuakhia ,At.Kuakhia P.O.Rasulpur,Dt.Jajpur

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                                                 Sri L. D .Nayak, Advocate  .

For the Opp.Parties :no.2                                            Sri Debadatta Panda,S.D.O, Elect .Bari

For the Opp.Parties ;No.3                                         Sri Ashok ku.Nayak,Executive Engineer,kuakhia. 

 

                                                                                                     Date of order:  29. 02. 2020.

SHRI  JIBAN  BALLAV  DAS,  PRESIDENT   .    

            The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps.          The facts relevant as per complaint petition  shortly  are  that the petitioner’s father is an agriculturist  cultivating in  his firm. He installed a L.I  point in his firm  and became a consumer bearing consumer No.25811KR before the O.Ps. since 26.10.83 the petitioner’s father and the petitioner himself used to pay the monthly  energy dues  to the O.Ps. regularly but in the year 1999 the L.I. point of the petitioner became  defunct due to super cyclone and became unused due to defunct . In the month of October-2000 the O.P disconnected the energy line  to the L.I. Point. But the O.Ps imposing monthly dues against the L.I point of the petitioner . Thereafter the petitioner made an application to O.P.no.3 as per instruction of other O.Ps , the petitioner has paid reconnection fee Rs.10,600/-  on dt.11.02.16 . Thereafter the O.Ps  have  reconnected the energy line  to the L.I point on 28.03.16  and the complainant lodged a written application to waive  the dues which has been imposed  during the disconnection period .But the O.ps did not waive the dues .  Further the O.Ps  demanded the dues which has been imposed during the disconnection period . The complainant has  paid Rs. 5,000/- on 31.03.16. Thereafter again the O.Ps issued a wrong  bill amount of Rs .70,125.83 paisa  on 28.02.17  and subsequently  issued disconnection   notice ,  and  demanded  Rs.70,512/- as well as  threatened to pay the outstanding dues within 15 days from the date of issue  of the notice,  failing which the energy line will be disconnected . Hence finding no other way  the petitioner has paid Rs. 25,000/- on 20.03.17 . The dues imposed by the O.p  during the disconnection period is illegal  and arbitrary  which are not payble by the petitioner . The complainant  is a cultivator  and his family  depends upon the agriculture  to maintain their livelihood . The O.Ps  have committed serious deficiency of service in rendering their service to a poor  bonafied  cultivator  . The petitioner also lodged written request  on 28.03.16  and 21.03.17  and on different dates but the O.ps did not pay any heed to  the grievance of the petitioner . Accordingly finding no other alternative the petitioner knocked the door of this Fora to direct  the O.Ps  to waive out  the dues which has been imposed during the disconnection period   as well as  the O.Ps may  be directed to return  the money  which has been received by them during the  disconnection period  along with  Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost.

            After  receipt of the notices the O.Ps  themselves  appeared and subsequently filed their written version   taking  the stand that :

the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts . The complainant is a P.L.I consumer  bearing consumer No.25811RR (6151-0237-0029)  under Sujanpur section of Bari Electrical sub division  since 26.10.83 having outstanding arrear Rs.50945.18  up to March-2018.  The complaint has mentioned that the L.I point was  defunct in 1999 and by the same time he had also mentioned the power supply was disconnected in the month of October-2000 which is totally false and baseless ,the billing statement from December-2000 to March-2018 is annexed. That as per official record regarding disconnection of  power supply  . It is the fact as per  letter no.235(2) dt. 04.05.2018 the O.P.no.2 and the area line man of Sahaspur  submitted  the report  regarding disconnection of power supply of P.L.I point . The area line man has   clarified that although power supply was disconnected temporarily on 05.11.2000 but the cultivation  work was continuing and the said complaint had availed power supply for PLI point .That  joint verification was made on 07.05.18 by area line man Sahaspur camp, Asst. Manager (elect) sujanpur section and S.D.O Elect, Bari in the presence of the petitioner and the villagers of Indaroi . As per the filed verification report it is a false to say that the cultivation had not been  done from 2000 to 2016 rather it is a fact that cultivation work continuing  in the above land during the said period and the power supply had been availed for L.I point by unauthorized means  and the billing of the petitioner was continued  accordingly  but the said complaint had not paid the dues .Therefore he is liable to pay all the arrears dues.. That in para-8  it has been mentioned that for cultivation in  the above agricultural land , the watering in each day for the plant is essential otherwise vegetable plants will be damaged.  In the same time it has been claimed that the said farmer had not availed power supply from 2000 to 2016  which is a long period of 16 years although  cultivation had continued  which are contradictory. That during February-2016 the use of electricity for the above PLI point was detected by NESCO authority   along with  period of non payment and the said complainant  had admitted his arrear and partly paid Rs. 40,000/- with 3 installment i.e Rs.10,000/- on February-2016,Rs.5,000/- on March-2016 and Rs.25000/- on March-2017  and further balance outstanding is Rs.50945.18 up to March-2018.  The O.Ps have never committed  negligence and harassment to the petitioner  In the above circumstances the O.ps have prayed to direct the petitioner to pay his arrear dues  .

                   After perusal of the record and documents ,ledger copy and affidavit in details :

The petitioner relied upon letter  dt.21.3.17 without any acknowledgement .

Letter dt. 28.03.16 with acknowledgement.

Written report of Ramchandra Bhuyan line man

Disconnection notice dt. 05.03.17.

            The O.P also relied upon such documents

1.Ledger copy of the billing cycle

2.Written report of Ramchandra Bhuyan-Ex line man –B

3. Joint verification report of NESCO Utility Authority .

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the side of the O.ps . The petitioner was absent . After perusal of the record and documents and ledger copy it is observed that it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is a agriculturist  and for cultivating his Firm installed  a L.I point and became a consumer before the O.PS since 26.10.83 and the petitioner stated in the complaint petition that the power supply to the L.I point though was continued  till the year 1999 but due to  super cyclone the L.I point was unused and became defunct. In the month of October-2000 the O.P has disconnected the power supply to the L.I point .Thereafter the power supply was disconnected till 10.02.16 and the O.ps reconnected the power supply after receiving Rs.10,000/- as arrear and Rs.600/- for reconnection charge vide receipt  No.994614 . Subsequently the O.ps also received Rs.5,000/- on 31.03.16 vide receipt no. 850614 and Rs.25,000/- on 20.03.17 vide receipt No.952916. Hence the petitioner claimed that the O.P   illegally claimed the arrear amount of the L.I point of the disconnected period from Oct-2000 and January-2016. On the other hand the O.Ps categorically denied the same and stated in their written version that the report of the line man clarified that the power supply was disconnected temporarily on 05.11.2000 but the cultivation work was continuing and the said complainant had availed power supply for PLI point as per joint verification report on 07.05.18, by the area line man ,Sahaspur camp, Asst.Manager (elect) Sujanpur and S.D.O, Elect, Bari in the presence of the petitioner and the villagers of Indaroi. As per verification report it is false to say that the cultivation had not been done from 2000 to 2016. It is a fact cultivation work continued in the above land during the said period and the power supply had been availed for L.I point by unauthorized means. Billing of the complainant was continued accordingly but  the said complainant had not paid the dues. The petitioner also filed an affidavit of Sridhar Nayak,Raghunath Bhuyan, Nimai ch.Nayak and Bharat Behera regarding supporting evidence of his claim . The O.Ps also filed an affidavit of the concerned lineman Ramesh ch.Bhuyan wherein stated that he was working as a line man un duty the NESCO utility in the area Indaroi under Sujanpur section ,Bari sub-division ,Bari up to January -2014and as per instruction of Jr.Manager Electrical Sujanpur electric section ,   disconnected the power supply of the L.I point of Sukadev Nayak due to non payment of arrears of electric dues and as per demand I had given a document regarding disconnection that after disconnection the power supply he had reconnected the power supply by his own means and he was availing power supply he had seen that the cultivation  work going on continuously in the said land and power supply was availed for the L. I point as and when required.

                As per assertions and counter assertions we verified  the ledger copy filed from the side of the O.ps we do not found that the petitioner had paid a single pai to the O.P receiving Rs.10,000/- on 11.02.16. Hence we are astonished to see under what circumstances the O.Ps continued the power supply for a period of 16 years when the petitioner did not pay a single pai. On the other hand the O.Ps stated in their written version that the O.ps disconnected the power supply in the year 2000, the petitioner availed power supply  by unauthorized means. What is unauthorized mean ?

If the O.ps disconnected the power supply for non payment of arrear outstanding dues of the petitioner, then the petitioner reconnected the power supply unauthorized way the O.P did not take any action against the petitioner as per provision of law. Accordingly we are unanimously inclined to hold that the O.ps have demanded the arrear bill from 2000 to 2016 is illegal as per observation of NCDRC, New Delhi reported in 2020(1) –CLT-P-291 wherein it is stated that section -56(2)-Indian Electricity Act clearly bars raising any such bill beyond the period of two years from the date of when it became due.  Hence the arrear demanded by the O.Ps from 2000 to 2016 is illegal which is also supported by the Hon’ble State commission Odisha reported in 2004(2) CLT-77,wherein it is held that

                “ raising the bill against the  original  consumer  for unauthorized drawal of power from    source is something not permissible and acceptable  under law.

Hence this Order

                The dispute is allowed against the O.Ps  on contest . The bill for the period from Oct- 2000 to  Feb-2016 is hereby waived in view of the above decision . The O.ps are estopped  to raise the demand for the above period . The O.Ps are also directed  to issue fresh revised bill after deducting the above period  within one month after receipt of this order . No cost .                                                                

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th  day of February,2020. under my hand and seal of the Forum.