SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of serving Notice for illegal recovery of arrear dues are the allegations arrayed against ops.
2. Complaint in brief reveals that complainant is a poor person and categorised under below Poverty line (BPL), he availed an electricity connection bearing consumer No. 02297865 under RGVY scheme. The power supply was connected to a separate house over a portion of plot No.318 appertaining to khata No.-90, Mouza-Rajanga. It is revealed from the Complaint Petition that Complainant was paying the monthly energy dues regularly and no arrears are pending on the Complainant. On dt.25/02/2015, Jr. Manager, ENZEN Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.1) vide Notice No.17/15 demanded to pay Rs. 30,000/-, towards arrears of Hurshikesh Panda father of the Complainant bearing consumer No.-01171280. It is also revealed from the complaint petition that protesting the Notice dt. 25/02/2015 issued by Op No.1, Complainant issued an advocate’s Notice on 04/03/2015 describing the facts that, he is separated from his father since last 40 years and residing a separate plot, further the father of the Complainant has two(2) more sons who are residing in the old house they are also availing separate power supply in their names. That apart the father of the Complainant has four(4) daughters and the demand of recovery of arrear dues are illegal and bad in law and disconnection of power supply gave mental agony to the Complainant, hence prayed this Forum for restoration of power supply and not to demand the arrear dues of his father and to get a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-for mental agony. The Cause of action of the instant case arose on dt.25/02/2015 when the Ops issued the Notice and subsequently on dt.05/03/2015 and dt.7/3/2015 when the Ops refused to provide the power supply to the Complainant.
3. Being Noticed Ops appeared through their ld. Counsel and filed written statement /supplementary written statement. Ops in their written statements averred that Complainant was given a separate Electricity connection in the month of Nov-2013 under BPL category bearing consumer No.-02297865. Hrushikesh Panda, the late father of the Complainant was given a electricity connection bearing consumer No,- 011712801under domestic category and an amount of Rs. 38632/- is pending as arrear dues up to Dec-2016. It is further averred in the written statement that as the complainant is the successor of his deceased father is liable to pay the 1/3rd share and the Ops are empowered to under OERC-code-2004 to collect the pending arrear dues from the complainant and for the reasons stated above the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. Heard the submissions of ld. Counsels for the Ops and case of the complainant on merit, perused the Xerox copies of monthly energy bills, money receipts, Notice no. 17/15 dtd. 25/2/2015, copy of the advocate’s Notice issued on dt. 4/3/2015 filed by Complainant, Ops also filed copy of statement of consumer Account of Complainant Saroj Kumar Panda being consumer No.-02297865 and his father Hurshikesh Panda bearing consumer no.-01171280.
The admitted facts of the case are that complainant Saroj Kumar Panda is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No.-02297865 and the power supply was given to the Complainant under RGVY scheme. It is also admitted that in connection to Complainant’s said consumer no., there is no arrear out standings pending against him. It is also admitted that Complainant’s father Hurshikesh panda was given a electricity connection under domestic category of consumer No.-01171280.
Apart from the admitted facts of the case, the dispute and complaint is filed challenging the legality of the issue of Notice bearing No.17/15 dtd. 25/2/2015, for recovery of arrear amount of Rs. 30,000/- which are pending as arrear dues of Complainant’s father namely Hrushikesh Panda. It is the case of the Complainant that, he is residing by constructing a separate house over a portion of Plot No.313, Khata No.-90 of vill-Rajanga, since long and he is availing a separate electricity connection under RGVY scheme bearing Consumer No.-02297865. It is the further case the complainant that his father Hurshikesh Panda has two more sons, who are residing on the old house where his father resided and the two sons of his father have also availed separate power supplies. Besides that the father of the Complainant has 4 daughters, but the Ops without ignoring the legal position and facts issued the recovery Notice.
Countering the allegations Ops case are that Complainant was given a new electricity connection on Nov-2013 under BPL Category bearing consumer No.-02297865. Ops also admit that the complainant has no arrear out standings in respect of the said consumer number rather Complaint was allowed to make advance payments. It is the further case of the Ops that Complaint’s father Hurshikesh Panda bearing consumer No.-01171280 was an arrear outstanding of Rs. 38632/- upto Dec-2016 and as per the OERC Rules and Regulations-2004, Complaint is liable to pay 1/3 share of the arrear dues. In the total dispute nothing is revealed from both the sides that whether the new service connection provided to Complainant’s premises is situated over the self-acquired property of Complainant or the house of the Complaint is located in the ancestral property after division among its co-shares? Further, it is not disclosed that when a new service connection was given to Complainant on Nov-2013, the father of the Complainant namely Hurshikesh panda was alive or not? Equally the written statement of Ops are silent regarding, when an arrear was pending on the name of the Complainant’s father How the Ops provided a new service connection to the Complainant without recovering the arrear dues or any undertaking from the Complainant for recovery of arrear outstandings. What are the position of law involved in the circumstances? Regulation10 of the OERC-Code-2004 is not applicable to the instant case as the Complainant has already given a new service connection on Nov-2013. Further Regulation 94(2) of OERC-Code-2001 describes ‘Recovery of arrears” which restrained the Ops to collect the arrear dues if the same are not reflected for a period of two years from the date when such became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity, as per provisions laid down under Sec 56(2) of the I.E.Act-2003. In the case in hand admittedly a new service connection was given to Complainant on Nov-2103 bearing consumer No.-02297865. The copy of monthly energy bills produced before this Forum by the Complainant and the statement of account of Complainant produced by the Ops from Dec-2013 till-date did not disclose any pending arrear dues on complainant-consumer except the Notice No.17/15 dt. 25/02/2015.
In the facts and positions of law discussed in the dispute, we are of the opinion that Ops without following or complying the Regulations 94(2) issued the Notice on dt. 25/02/2015 on demanding Rs. 30,000/- to be paid by the Complainant as an arrear dues is not legally sustainable on eye of law and the serving of Notice on Complainant on dt.25/02/2015 is illegal and same to be withdrawn. In the I.A. case No. 7/15 as an interim measure this Forum passed an order for restoration of power supply subject to payment of certain amount. If any amount is paid by the Complainant as per the said order same to be adjusted in the future monthly energy bills of the Complainant. Accordingly, the I.A. case No. 7/15 is here by disposed of.
Having observations reflected above the Complaint is allowed in part on merit without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 6th Day of March, 2017.
