Orissa

Jajapur

CC/182/2012

Rabinarayan Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jr.Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

G.R.Mohanty

29 Apr 2015

ORDER

                           IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                    Present: 1. Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                   2. Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                   3. Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

Dated the 29th day of April,2015.

C.C.Case No.182 of 2012

Rabinarayan Mohanty, S/O Late Sarat ch.Mohanty

Vill.Wasahi , P.O. Markandpur

P.S./ Dist .Jajpur.                                                                                   ……………..…..Complainant .                                                                                                                       (Versus)

1.J.E,Electrical Sec No.11,Jajpur .

2.Sub-Divisional Officer,Electrical No.1,Jajpur.

3.Executive Engineer,Electrical ,Jajpur .

4.Superintending Engineer, NESCO,Dhabalgiri,Jajpur Road,Jajpur.          …………Opp.Parties.

                                                                                                                                                                                          

For the Complainant:                      Sri G.R.Mohanty , Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                      Sri G.Ch. Panda, Miss B.R. Rout, Advocates.

                                                                      

SHRI  PITABAS MOHANTY, MEMBER.            Date of order  :   29.04.2015.

                        The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

            The facts relevant for the present dispute shortly as per complaint petition is that the petitioner being an inhabitant of village Wasahi P.S. Jajpur as well as an electrical domestic Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.JTR 3182 is availing power supply from the year 1990 under Mogalpur Transformer. For assessing  the electricity dues the O.Ps. have also installed a meter in the premises of the petitioner . It is stated by the petitioner that the transformer of Magalpur has been damaged on 21.09.1999 and remained non functional up to July-2002 for which the petitioner was not availing power supply . As against such condition of the transformer though the petitioner was not availing power supply for the above cited period but the O.Ps have disconnected the power supply from the premises of the petitioner without prior notice as well as demanding Rs.24,173=79 towards arrear electricity

dues which is arbitrarily on the part of the O.Ps. . Accordingly the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps.

1.to correct the disputed electricity bill .

2.to provide power supply .

3. to award Rs.2,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charge and compensation respectively.

            The O.Ps. after appearance have filed the written version denying the allegation of the petitioner . In the written version the O.Ps. have taken the following defence :-

1. The claim for correction of electricity bill is barred by limitation .
2. The dispute is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary party since the OPs. have not disconnected power supply rather as per allegation of the petitioner in case the power supply has been disconnected the same has not been done by ENZEN who being the necessary party in the present case has been implead as a party.
3. The petitioner has not approached the O.Ps. for correction of disputed electricity bill.
4. Similarly it is also not the fact that the  transformer of Mogalpur burnt from 21.09.99 to July-2002 rather as per copy of register of transformer break down and report of J.E it has been ascertained that the transfer of Mogalpur failed from 21.09.99 till 03.06.2000 and from 16.03.2001 to 04.10.2001 .

In view of the above cited clarification there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, for which the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing both the sides we have perused the record along with the documents filed by the parties in detail and inclined to offer  our views as per the observations  below.

1. Admittedly the petitioner is a consumer under the O.Ps. who has filed the present dispute for correction of inflated bill assessed against the petitioner during break down of the transformer.

            As against such grievance  of the petitioner the O.Ps. have taken the stand that this dispute is liable to be dismissed since the claim for correction of electricity bill is barred by limitation. In this context we have come across with the order of one Laxmidhar jena of Wasahi who had filed a dispute bearing C.D. Case No.72/2003 . In disposing this dispute on 19.12.2003 this Fora  vide para-3 of the order has observed that in the written version filed by O.Ps. in C.D. Case No.72/2003  where in the O.Ps. are agreed to correct the inflated bill even if it is barred by limitation. In this context we have also observed  that in the present case the O.Ps. have admitted in the written version vide para-3  that as per copy of Register of break down of transformer and report of J.E the Mogalpur transformer was failed from 21.09.99 to 03.06.2000 and from 16.03.2001 to 04.10.2001. Further the report of J.E vide letter no.71 dt.14.06.2001 filed from the side of the petitioner also indicates that 18 nos. of consumer are not availing power supply due to damage of transformer from 10/99  to 14.06.2001. As such we are unanimously in the view that owing to facts and circumstances of the  present dispute the claim of the petitioner for correction of inflated bill is not barred by limitation as per observation of Hon’ble M.P, State Commission reported in 2004-11-CLD-p-568 vide para-7 and the petitioner is entitled for correction of inflated electricity bill in view of the observation of appellant forum reported in 1995(1) CPJ-156.

B. Similarly the plea taken by O.Ps . that the dispute is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary party is also not sustainable in the eye of law as per observation of Supreme Court reported in 2004-12-CLD-339-SC since for availing power supply the petitioner has made agreement with the O.Ps.

C.As regards disconnection of power supply from the premises of the petitioner without notice is also not sustainable since the petitioner himself has filed the disconnection notice as well  as per  Regulation -100 of OERC Code-2004 ,the O.Ps. are empowered to disconnect the power supply in case of non payment of electricity dues.

             In view of the above observations we are inclined to dispose of the dispute as per order stated below.

O R D E R

                        The dispute is disposed of with directions:-

1. The O.Ps.  are directed to restore the power supply to the premises of the petitioner within 3 days after receipt of this order.

2. Further the O.Ps. are directed to revise the inflated bill within one month  after receipt of the order taking into consideration of  Electricity Act-2003 and OERC Code-2004 .

3. The revise bill shall be served to the petitioner by R.P within 7 days of correction.

4. The petitioner is directed to pay the outstanding electricity dues of the revised bill if any within 15 days after receipt of the revise bill ,failing which the O.Ps. are at liberty to take action as per Regulation -100 of OERC Code-2004.

In case the order is not complied as per direction stated vide para-2 . The O.Ps shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs.1000/-

              This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29 th day of April 2015. Under my hand and seal of the Forum.                                                                                           

 

(Shri  Biraja Prasad Kar)                                                             (Shri Pitabas Mohanty )

            Member.                                                                                    President.                                                 

                                                                                   

                                                                                       Typed to my dictation & corrected by me

(Miss Smita Ray)                                                                 

       Member.                                                                              (Shri Pitabas Mohanty )

                                                                                          Member.