Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/88/2014

Harihar Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Electricals , DED CESU. & Others - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL

                                                     C.C.Case No. 88 of 2014

Harihar Rout, aged about 51 years

S/o late Sachidananda Rout,

At/Po: Khadagaprasad,

PS: Motanga, Dist: Dhenkanal                                        …..........Complainant

                                                                Versus

1) Manager Electrical, T.E.D, CESU,

    At/Po: Chainpal, PS: Tharmal, Dist: Angul

2) S.D.O Electrical, CESU, At/Po: Chaipal,

     P.S: Tharmal, Dist: Angul

3) Junior  Manager Electrical, Meramundali Section,

     CESU, At/Po: Meramundali, PS: Motanga,

     Dist: Dhenkanal                                                       …........Opp. Parties

Present:   Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,

                   Sri Khirod Kumar Pani, Member

                   Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

Counsel: For the complainant:  Purna Chandra Mishra

                  For the Opp. Parties: Asit Kumar Sahoo, Clerk, Autho. Agent

Date of hearing argument: 2.1.2017

Date of order: 13.1.2017

                                                                       

                                                            JUDGMENT

Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President

                In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties.

1)            Very briefly, the case of the complainant stated are that he has availed power supply vide consumer No. MED 0149 on payment of consideration under PRVT category and the connected load is 40 KW to run a Fly ash brick unit for self-employment which is the only source of income.  An energy meter was installed in the premises for actual billing on the basis of meter reading and the bills are being supplied to the complainant on the basis of actual meter reading from time to time.  There was an arrear outstanding of Rs. 1,27,486/- till the end of November-2014 . The Opp. Parties have issued bills for the period from March-2013 to October-2013 and from 28.2.2014 to 11.12.2014 when there was no power supply to the premises.  The Opp. Parties have also claimed a sum of Rs. 3686.50 towards transformer loss.  The complainant is not liable to pay any dues during the period of non-supply. Besides, the Opp. Parties have charged dues of consumption under MINHT (20) Category instead of PRVT category and thus due to higher slab charges the arrear has been raised to a large extent.  The Opp. Parties did not rectify the bills after several persuasions and the Opp. Parties through some anti-social elements threatened to disconnect power supply to the unit of the complainant without prior notice.  The complainant also moved to the GRF Dhenkanal but they failed to decide the matter for which the complainant has been compelled to file the present case. The complainant has come up before this Forum seeking for a direction to the Opp. Parties to restore power supply to the unit of the complainant and to revise the bills issued erroneously after deducting the bill amount for the disconnection period of 17 months    and to waive the complainant from payment of transformer loss charges and issue a fresh correct bill.  The tariff of the consumer be converted from HT category to LT category and refund the amount wrongly collected in excess from the petition.  Besides, the complainant prays to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- daily to the complainant towards business loss and to award compensation , cost of Rs. 55,000/-.   The contents of the petition are supported by affidavit.

                2)  The Opp. Parties though appeared through their representative, despite several adjournments no written version is filed for which the matter was heard from the complainant alone basing on the documents available on record.  Now the only question before us to be determined as to whether the bills are to be revised during the period of non-supply.  The sole allegation of the complainant that there was no power supply to the premises for the period from March-2013 to October-2013 and from 28.2.2014 to 11.12.2014.  But the Opp. Parties have charged dues of consumption during the above period which are not tenable and payable by the complainant.  Besides, the complainant claims exemption from payment of Rs. 3686.50 as has been charged by the O.Ps for transformer loss.  Further the complainant claims that the O.Ps have converted the tariff and have charged dues of consumption charges at higher slab under MINHT (2)) Category.  All the above averments of the complainant have not been denied.  To come to a definite conclusion we have gone through the documents available on record.  On our perusal of the documents we find that the Category under which the complainant has been charged is Prvt for a contract demand of 40 K.W and the basis of the billing has been made on actual consumption as evident from the bill dated 4.12.2014 for the period from 1.11.2014 to 30.11.2014. Therefore, question of change of tariff as has been alleged by the complainant is not established by any cogent evidence. As regards to the billing for the period from 3/13/ to 10/2013 we find that the complainant on 29.10.2014 sent a letter to the Manager, DED Chainpal/Enzen describing that the power supply was not made available for the above period and also requested to exempt him from payment of any dues during the period when there was no power supply due to transformer defective.  The J.M., Meramundali Sec.  has also certified that the supply was disconnected from 28.2.2014  to  till  now i.e. 29.10.2014. Vide memo No.28 Dt. 7.2.2014 it has been intimated by the Junior Manager to the Enzen Global Pvt. Ltd stating therein that the power supply has been disconnected from 5.3.2013 and also reconnected on 22.10.2013 as per their record.  From the above two documents it is crystal clear that there was no power supply for the period from 5.3.2013 to 22.10.2013 and from 28.2.2014 to 29.10.2014.  But there is no evidence on record as to whether the above period has been revised or not.  Therefore, in our opinion since there was no power supply due to breakdown of transformer, the complainant is not liable to pay any dues during that period as “No supply no dues”.  In this regard we are fortified by a decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in I (1991) CPJ-Page-182 in case of the Karnataka State Electricity Board & Another versus ESCON PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER        wherein it has been held that the charges levied on the basis of minimum charges are not recoverable during the period when no electricity had been supplied to the consumer. Now therefore, taking into consideration of the factual aspects and the principle of law as has been decided by the National Commission referred to above, we are of the view that the complainant is not liable to pay the consumption charges during the period of non-supply i.e. 5.3.2013 to 22.10.2013 and from 28.2.2014 to 29.10.2014.    Hence ordered.

                                                                ORDER

                The complaint is allowed in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs.  The Opp. Parties are directed to revise the bills afresh by exempting the complainant from payment of consumption charges during the period of non-supply i.e. 5.3.2013 to 22.10.2013 and from 28.2.2014 to 29.10.2014.  The Opp. Parties are further directed to pay cost of the litigation of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only to the complainant.  The compliance of the directions shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The power supply shall not be disconnected till the order of the Forum is complied with.

 

(Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy) (Khirod Kumar Pani) (Badal Bihari Pattanaik)

                Member                            Member                      President