DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:BHADRAK
Dated the 11th day of October, 2017
C.D.Case No.37 of 2015
Smt. Snehalata Samal
W/o: Subash Chandra samal
Vill: Belagadia
Po/Ps: Bhandaripokhari
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
- Junior Engineer, Electrical
Bhandaripokhari Sec- I
At/Po/Ps: Bhandaripokhari
Dist: Bhadrak
- Executive Engineer
Bhadrak (South) Electrical Division
At: Aradi Chhack
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: Sri Niranjan Sahoo
For O.Ps: Authorized Representative Sri M. Dey, Law Officer, NESCO
Date of hearing : 23.01.2017
Date of order : 11.10.2017
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by complainant alleging unfair trade practice as well as deficiency of service against opposite parties.
The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a bonafide consumer under Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (South) Electrical Division. In order to install and run a wheat grinding machine to earn his livelihood and to maintain his family, complainant applied for installation of a 12.5 K.W. Transformer of his own. Considering the application of the complainant, the competent authority directed to the complainant to deposit estimated amount & to execute relevant documents including an agreement which were complied within a short span of time by the complainant and the O.Ps supplied power to the personal transformer of the complainant during the year 2003. But after about 10 years, that is during the year 2014, the Junior Engineer Electrical, Bhandaripokhari Sec- I provided power supply /connection to another consumer namely Gopal Rout from the aforesaid transformer which was vehemently opposed and resisted by the complainant. OP No. 1, without caring for the resistance so posed by the complainant, supplied power from the transformer installed at the personal cost of the complainant and assured the complainant that Rs 50,000/- will be paid to him in cash collecting from the other consumer but did not to do so after power supply was made to the house of another consumer namely Sri Rout in the year 2014. The complainant has alleged that the O.Ps have done the unlawful work violating the term of agreement executed between the complainant and competent authority of NESCO, Bhadrak (South) Division and such action of O.Ps attributes to unfair trade practice.
Being aggrieved by the arbitrary and monopoly action of OP No. 1, complainant served a notice upon the O.Ps through his Advocate on 31.01.2014, requesting them to refrain themselves from such activities which violates the terms of agreement executed between them but the O.Ps did not respond the complainant’s notice for about 2 months which also amounts to deficiency of service. Due to non response of the O.Ps on this matter the complainant, finding no other way, filed this dispute seeking relief to get back 50% of the expenses made for installation of transformer together with cost and compensation.
O.Ps resisted the claim and contested the case. The authorized agent of the O.Ps namely Sri M. Dey appeared before the Forum and filed an objection petition questioning the maintainability of the case in consumer Forum under the provisions of regulation 27 of OERC Distribution (Conditions of supply) code, 2004 and finally prayed for dismissal of the case on the ground of maintainability.
Admittedly the complainant is consumer under O.Ps and has installed transformer at his own cost to use absolutely for his own purpose. It is also admitted by O.Ps that another consumer namely Sri Gopal Rout is given power/energy connection from the transformer that has been installed at the cost of complainant. Dispute arose between the parties when O.Ps forcefully supplied power to another consumer connecting from the complainant’s transformer. After going through the complaint and written objection of complainant and O.Ps respectively, following issues are found involved in this case which are discussed here under to draw a conclusion to this case.
1. Complainant has alleged against the O.Ps that the power connection has been given to a consumer namely Gopal Rout from the transformer installed at his cost. It is also raised by the complainant that at the time of processing of the installation work, both the parties have entered in to an agreement wherein it is specifically mentioned that the OP shall obtain the consent of the complainant to provide power supply to other consumers from the transformer installed at the cost of the complainant. Despite vehement protest and resistance of the complainant, O.Ps provided power supply from the said transformer violating the terms of the agreement executed.
It is also added in course of hearing by the complainant that after providing power supply to another consumer, the wheat grinding machine failed to function properly due to low voltage. In order to overcome this problem, the complainant met the OP No. 1 several times to remove the connection from his transformer which could not be materialized even after service of notice by the Advocate of the complainant. The attitude & behavior of O.Ps was so annoying which compelled the complainant to raise the dispute in the D.C.D.R.F, Bhadrak.
On the contrary O.Ps, through their authorized representative Sri M. Dey (Law Officer), appeared in the Forum and filed a petition praying for rejection of the case on the ground of maintainability under the provision of regulation 27 of OERC Distribution (Conditions of supply) code- 2004. The said provision of the regulation speaks as “The entire service line not withstanding that whole or portion thereof has been paid by the consumer, shall be the property of the license who shall always have the right to use it for supply of energy to any other person unless the line has been provided for the exclusive use of the consumer through any arrangement agreed to in writing.”
Heard both complainant & O.Ps and perused materials on record. The agreement clearly speaks of the written consent from the complainant is barely required for supplying power to other consumers from the transformer and pole installed at the cost of the complainant. The terms of the agreement very much consistent with the regulation 27 of OERC Distribution (Conditions of supply) code, 2004 where it is also specified that the licensee has/have right to use the same for supply of energy to any other persons unless the line has been provided for exclusive use of the consumer. Here in the present case, the line has been provided exclusively to the complainant for industrial purpose which cannot be shared by others because of the reason that the capacity of the transformer installed is according to the requirement of the consumer. In the present case, the O.Ps have supplied power to (Gopal Rout) another consumer without obtaining written consent as per provisions of regulation- 27 and terms of the agreement executed between the parties which is considered as violation of terms of the agreement & such arbitrary actions of O.Ps attribute to unfair trade practice and not responding to the grievance of complainant for a prolonged period of one year (approximately) by the O.Ps also attributes to deficiency of service and the O.Ps are liable to indemnify the loss sustained by the complainant.
2. O.ps raised the question of maintainability on the ground that the O.Ps are not negligent in providing proper service and not indulged in any type of unfair trade practice in respect of distribution of energy/electricity. Complainant vehemently opposed the submissions of OP in stating that in spite of vehement opposition and resistance of complainant, O.Ps supplied power to another consumer/person from the transformer installed at the cost of the complainant for his exclusive use and secondly O.Ps did not hesitate to violate the terms and conditions of agreement which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
Perused the materials available on record & heard both the parties during hearing. It reveals from the documents filed by the complainant that the O.Ps have arbitrarily supplied power to another consumer from the transformer installed at the cost of the complainant without caring for the legal impediments and the same was prejudicial to the interest of the complainant and such an action of O.Ps consequently resulted in less output for the complainant from the industrial unit which is the only source of earning livelihood. Thus the O.Ps are liable to indemnify the loss sustained by the complainant due to low voltage caused due to supply of power to another consumer from the said transformer.
In view of the facts as analyzed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is held that the O.Ps are deficient in providing proper service to the complainant and grossly involved in unfair trade practice. Therefore the O.Ps have to indemnify the loss sustained by the complainant. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost & compensation. O.Ps are directed to pay 50% of the total cost incurred for installation of transformer, that is Rs 46,390/- along with Rs 5,000/- as compensation and Rs 3,000/- as cost, either from their own resource or by realizing from the consumer to whom power connection was given, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 7.5% shall be charged on the aforesaid amount excluding cost from the date of order till it’s realization.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 11th October, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Sri Basanta Kumar Mallick)
Member
(Sri Raghunath Kar)
President
Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Sri Basanta Kumar Mallick)
(Apsara Begam) Member
Member
