Orissa

Cuttak

CC/100/2022

Md. Mohibbe Rabani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Junior Engineer,Electrical - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.100/2022

 

Md. Mohibbe Rabbani,

S/O:Late Qutub Rabbani,

At/PO:Monoharpur,Simlpada,Cuttack-754221.         ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1. The Junior Engineer(Electrical),

At/PO:Raisungada Electrical Sectioin,Salepur,

                          Cuttack-754221

 

2. The S.D.O(Elecrical),

Salipur Electrical Sub Division,

 

 At:Chandradeipur,PO:Salipur,Cuttack-754202

3. The Executive Engineer(Electrical),

Salipur Electrical Division,

           At:Chandradeipur,PO:Salipur,Cuttack-754202 ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     24.05.2022

Date of Order:    25.01.2023

 

For the complainant:              Self.

For the O.Ps :           Mr. A.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

The complainant has filed the present case against the O.Ps to revise his energy bill for the period from the year 1988.  His case in brief is that in the year 1972, two agreements were executed with the O.Ps for supply of energy to his premises.  Out of two agreements, one agreement was executed for supply of three phase line of electricity to run a Small Scale Industry and other agreement was executed for supply of electricity from a single phase line for commercial purposes.  It is stated by the complainant that the O.Ps have not provided the single phase line as per the agreement.  It is alleged by the complainant that the O.Ps are charging energy dues at a higher rate, which is  violative of Electricity Act and Regulations framed there under.  It is stated by the complainant that the meter installed in his premises was a defective one, for which he had contacted the O.Ps to take necessary steps but the O.Ps without taking any steps had prepared energy bill on the basis of load factor showing remarks therein as “house locked”.  It is also stated by him that the O.Ps had submitted a bill in October,2017 amounting to Rs.55,983/-,  which is not inconsonance with any rules or regulations framed under Electricity Act.  His further case is that inspite of his repeated requests, the O.Ps are not installing the new meter and charging electricity bill on the basis of load factor.  He has stated that on 21.11.21 he had approached the Consumer Counselling and Information Centre, Cuttack for redressal of his grievances.  But the O.Ps did not turn-up for which his case could not be settled. Hence, he has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to revise his electricity bill and to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards his loss.

In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed some documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  The case of the O.Ps is that the complainant’s father Late Md. Qutab Rabbani had taken three phase power connection for running 10 HP motor for his Small Scale Industry since 1972 and he was being charged energy bill under Small Scale Industry category type.  It is stated by them that due to house lock, the bills have been prepared as per the load factor basis.  In the month of October,2017 they had issued the energy bill on the basis of load factor amounting to Rs.55,983/-.  It is stated by them that as per the billing statement, the complainant’s arrear dues up toOctober,2017 was Rs.1,13,914.78pand after receiving the said bill, the complainant had made part payment of that bill amount and running his Haller till today.  As per the bill statement, the complainant’s arrear dues as on 3/2022 was Rs.84,958/-.  It is further stated by the O.Ps that the complainant never approached them for rectification of his bill nor he had applied for any new connection of energy to his premises as alleged by him.  It is stated by them that the bill was prepared and served upon the complainant in the month of October,2017 but after lapse of four years, he has challenged the said bill before this Commission, which is not maintainable as the same is barred by time.  It is stated by the O.Ps that as per Regulation91 of OERC Code, 2004, in case of disputed/erroneous bill, the consumer can apply before the designated officer as determined by the licensee for revision of the same but the complainant has not approached the said officer in that regard.  It is further stated by the O.Ps that earlier the father of the complainant had filed one C.D. Case no.147/2004before this Commission to revise energy tariff of the arrear bill.  This Commission vide its order dt.20.09.2005, while disposing the said case had given liberty to the father of the complainant to approach OERC for revision of the tariff as levied against him.  It is also stated that the complainant is not paying the current dues regularly.  Hence, it is prayed by the O.ps to dismiss the complaint case.

In order to support their stand the O.Ps have filed copies of some documents.  They have also filed evidence affidavit.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the complaint case is barred by time ?

ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.i.

As per Sec-69 of the C.P.Act,2019  the period for filing the complaint case is two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen.  In the present case, the complainant is challenging the bill prepared by the O.Ps in the month of Octob,2017 but he   has filed the present case on 24.5.2022 after lapse of 5 years, which is barred by limitation.

Issue no.iii.

This issue being most pertinent issue is taken up before issue no.ii.

The complainant has withheld the fact that his father namely, Qutab Rabbani for the self-same cause of action had filed one C.D.Case no.147/2004 for revision of electricity bill.  This Commission vide its order dt.20.9.2005 had given liberty to his father to approach OERC constituted under Electricity Act,Rules & Regulations framed there under for redressal of his grievances.  The complainant without approaching that authority has filed the present case before this Commission on the self-same cause of action.  In the present case cause of action arose in the year 2005, when the complainant alleged to have given application to the O.Ps about his defective meter but he has filed the case in the year 2022on the allegation that the O.Ps are not revising the bill since 2005is completely barred by time.  The complainant has not produced any document to the effect that he or his father ever had approached any of the authority for revision of his bill as per the order dt.20.9.2005, passed by this Commission in C.D.Case No.147/2004. Be that as it may, the present dispute arose when the O.Ps served the energy bill in October,2017 and the complainant without any protest went on paying some arrear bill and availing energy supply without any interruption but suddenly he has filed the case in the year 2022 speaks itself ill intention on his part, which is also barred by time.   The O.Ps have filed the copy of consumer billing Ledger.  As per the said Ledger, the complainant’s arrear outstanding dues was Rs.84,958/- as on March,2022.  It reveals from the said Ledger that the complainant is a regular defaulter in payment of current energy charges but he is availing power supply without any interruption.   Hence, it is presumed that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and the case of the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission.

Issues no.ii & iv.

From the discussions as made above, it is held that the case of the complainant is not maintainable, so also it is barred by time.  Hence, heis not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                                            ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 25^thday of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                     Member

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President