MR. PRABODHA KUMAR DASH, PRESIDENT:-
The C.C. Case No. 4/2019 is pending since 2019. The licensee has been changed from CESU to Enzen then to TPCODL but the grievances remain unsolved throughout from 1990 to till today. Both parties appeared. We tried for amicable settlement between the parties. Heard Ld. Counsel, for Complainant Subash Chandra Sahani and Ld. Counsel for TPCODL Mr. P.K.Samal.
Heard submission by Ld. Counsel for Complainant & Ld. Counsel for Ops. The Complainant submitted that the consumer before dispute was in the name of Sarojini Sahani, she is dead, the Ops not substituted the name of Subash Ch. Sahani for so many years. She died in the year 2000. The Ops which has been changing frequently disconnected supply on dt. 17.11.2018 without notice & subsequently which has been restored by order of this Commission passed under IA No. 7/2019. As per allegation the Ops registered a false case against the Complainant in Police Station. The Ops failed to provide any statement from 1990 to 2005 for proper adjudication of the dispute. The Ops arbitrary illegal action prejudiced the Complainant poor consumer prejudice by the Ops throughout the past 25 years where the licensee changed by the O.E.R.C time to time. The Ops have not received the bill amount where there was a failure of power supply for more than six months during 1999 Super Cyclone & other natural calamities. The Ld. Adv. for Ops submitted that this Commission has no power to interfere with the licensee business, whatever the complaint shall be attended by licensee. The Authorized GRF has only power to deduct the earlier arrear amount but not the present DCDRC. Further the DCDRC has no jurisdiction to adjudicate electric dispute whether its U/S135,126,127. Electricity Act-2003 & rules there under. This Commission when ever gone through the provision of Sec-100 of C.P.Act 2019, which said (Act not in derogation of any other law):- Provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Further the service of Ops well defined U/S-2(42) of C.P.Act,2019 where service include supply of electrical or other energy and any deficiency of Ops coming under deficiency of service either in other section of electricity Act-2019. Nowhere it was prescribed that 135 and 126,127 section are not maintainable under C.P.Act,2019. We have seen from the financial statement of number of consumer that the GRF reduced the outstanding whether it was arose due to penalty under 126 or127 of E.Act or U/s-135 to 140 and 150 O.e.Act-2003 other reason the same deducted upto 10% to 70% of outstanding by the GRF which established by licensee by OERC Regulation only but the Ld. Counsel submitted this Commission constituted by a statue passed by legislature & empowered with judicial & executive power called quasi judicial have no power to adjudicate the electric disputes against the present licensee.
The dispute relating to23 years back 1999 Super Cyclone billing & the Ops failed to produce the same therefore the outstanding arose during that period shown in 2005 is Rs. 30898.55/- to which is not liable to pay the Complainant. That was not shown previously before 2005.therefore the Complainant cannot forced to pay arrear bill of 1999 in 2005 bill as per OERC Notification in Chapter-XI.
The Complainant not liable to pay Rs. 30898.55 which shall be deducted from the final arrear amount on 10/2022 is Rs. 38057/-, finally the Complainant will pay arrear amount is 38057- 30898 = Rs.7269/-, the same will be payable in 12 months with the monthly bill from Feb-2023 till its realization. Unless the order carried out by the Ops & further forced the Complainant shall at liberty to exercise its legal provision to execute the order for non compliance of the order by the Ops.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 15th day of March,2023.
I agree
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
