Orissa

Jajapur

CC/24/2017

Soumendra Kumar Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Junior Engineer,Electrical Badachana Sub-Division. - Opp.Party(s)

Sarat Chandra Bal

23 Oct 2017

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 23rd day of October,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.24 of 2017

Sourendra Kumar Mohanty, S/O Prafulla Ku.Mohanty

Proprietor Odisha Electronics ,  

At. Chandikhole Chhak , Chandikhole ,P.O./Via.Sunguda

P.S.badachana, Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1. Junior Engineer,Electrical,Badachana Sub-division, (CESU) Dt. Jajpur.

2.S.D.O,Electrical,Badachana sub-division (CESU)

At/P.O/.P.S/.Badachana,Dt.jajpur.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                           Sri S.Ch.Bal, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                               Sri S. Ku. Bal, Advocate

                                                                                                     Date of order:   23.10.2017.

 

SHIR  PITABAS  MOHANTY,   MEMBER  .

Deficiency in energy service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The fact relevant  shortly  as per complaint petition is that, the petitioner is electricity consumer under the O.Ps bearing consumer no.03376089 and  paying  the electricity dues regularly. Due to  an inflated arrear electricity bill of Rs.87.117/- up to  june-14 , the petitioner approached the O.P for correction of the said inflated bill . Thereafter the O.P reduced  the bill amount Rs. 50,949/ from the arrear electricity dues of the petitioner and the rest amount shown as Rs.36,895/- as arrear till July-14 .  It is pertinent to mention here that again the reduced  amount of Rs.50,945/- was added in the month of electricity bill March -2016  for which  the bill amount comes to  Rs.1,21,069= 24 as on  March-2016 but the actual  bill amount of the petitioner up to  March-2017 was only Rs.76,473/ .  In the mean the time the O.P  threatened  the petitioner to disconnect the power supply if the arrear dues was not paid  in time.  Accordingly finding no other alternative the petitioner knocked the door of this Fora with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to revise the inflated electricity bill after deducting Rs.56,367/- from the arrear and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-  for mental agony and litigation cost.

            After notice  the O.Ps appeared and subsequently filed the written version taking the following pleas:-

1.That the petitioner is not a consumer as per section-2(15) of the  Electricity  Act says that

“  A consumer means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by licensee or the Govt. or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying  of electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force  and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of the receiving electricity with the work of a licensee ,  the Govt.  or such other person “.

2That it is wise to mention here that section-42 (5) of the electricity  Act -2003 confirms

‘ every Distribution Licensee  shall within 6  months from the appointed date or  grant of licensee , which ever is earlier , establish a forum for redressal of  grievances  of the consumers  in accordance with guide lines  as may be specified by the State Commission..”

3.That a special forum has been formed for the consumer under 42 (5) and 42 (6) of the Electricity Act 2003 .  But here the petitioner instead of taking shelter before  GRF has come to the Consumer Forum.

4.That the petitioner was paying the Electricity bill in average basis for more than  years having no complain whereas  Section-58 (2) of the  Electricity Act explain

“ if the meters  become defective in service or found to be missing, the  consumer shall , on such defects  or loss being noticed  by him or notified to him by the engineer,  remove  the defects or , as the case may be,  replace  the meter within a period not exceeding 30 working days’.”

The petitioner getting advantage of the  defective meter ,  did not make any complain where from the respondent’s  side it was demanded to install a new meter but the petitioner avoided to replace the defective  meter . Accordingly in  his absence a  new meter was installed in the month of feb-14 in the premises of the petitioner ‘s hotel and from that day  the petitioner is  paying the bill in actual basis.

5. That it is a matter of regret that the petitioner cunningly  has done everything and also having  knowledge  on rules and regulations  because it is clear that by Meter Collector or by any unfair means the petitioner has minimized the reading within 6 months and after completion of 6 months he has demanded for  correction of   bills.

            In view of the above circumstances the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner is  not a consumer under the Electricity  Act -2003.

            Owing to the above contradicting statement of both the parties on the date of hearing we heard the argument from the side of the petitioner. After perusal of the record along with documents in details we observed that:

1. Admittedly it is undisputed  fact that the petitioner is a  consumer under the O.Ps   bearing consumer No.  03376089.                      

2. it is also a fact that an amount of Rs. 1,32,866/-   has been shown as arrear up to march -2017  by the O.Ps against the petitioner . In the present dispute the petitioner challenges  that the O.P have prepared the monthly electricity bill on the basis of load factor/ average basis for which an inflated arrear of Rs.87,117/ arises upto  june-14. Thereafter the petitioner approached the O.Ps for correction of the inflated arrear bill and the O.Ps  reduced it to Rs.50,945/-    from the arrear of the petitioner in the month of July-14. The petitioner also alleged that the O.Ps  again added the deducted arrear in the month of March-16.  In the circumstances the O.Ps has taken  the plea that the petitioner in using  the electric line as the meter is defective the petitioner got  advantage of the defective period  but did not make any complain regarding the defect  of meter to the O.Ps and did not  demand  to install a new meter . The new meter was installed in the month of  Feb-14 in the

premises of the petitioner’s hotel and from that day the petitioner is paying the electricity bill as per actual meter reading . The O.Ps. alleged that It is  a matter of regret that the petitioner cunningly has done everything and also having knowledge on rules and regulations though meter collector or by any unfair means the petitioner has minimized the charges  within 6 months and after completion of 6 months he has demanded for correction of bills.

            In the above peculiar circumstances owing to assertion and counter assertions we  verified  the ledger copy which was filed from the side of the O.Ps  and it  reveals that  maximum period of electricity  bill has been prepared in average / load factor basis  which was clear violation of Regulation 86 and 93(8) of OERC Code- 2004 .  Hence we are inclined  to hold that the O.Ps  have  committed patent deficiency  of service  in view of the observation of Hon’ble national Commission and Hon’ble state Commission reported in 2008(2) CPR-318-NC , 2005(2) CPR-623-Raipur, 2013(1) CPR-62-Rajsthan.  As such to meet the ends of justice we allow the dispute.

Hence this Order:-

            Without drawing any  adverse inference we direct the O.Ps.   to revise the electricity bill /  which are  prepared on load factor / average basis  of the petitioner after taking 6 months average  consumption from Feb-2014   in the present new  meter within one month as per Regulation -97 of OERC Code-2004  after receipt of  the order ,failing which the petitioner can take steps  as per law .  No cost.    

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23rd day of October,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.