MISS PERWIN SULTANA,MEMBER:-
Deficiency in service arrayed against the Opp.parties due to non-supply of electric re- connection for the cultivation of their lands.
2. Case of the complainant, in nutshell is that, they have formed Pani Panchayat as per the guideline of the State Government. The complainant No.1 Sri Dayanidhi Panda was the President and Sri Niranjan Rout was the Secretary of the said Pani panchayat. The said Pani panchayat was registered under the Registration of Societies Act on dtd. 29.11.2004 and an agreement was executed between both the parties, As per the said agreement the complainant paid the electrical energy charges from January to May,2011 and after completion of cultivation the power supply was disconnected for the month of June and July,2011 and the complainants have paid the electrical energy dues for the disconnection. Again they have paid the reconnection charges of 150/- on dtd. 24.08.11. It is also the case of the complainants that they have not consumed the electrical energy but they have paid the non-consumption fees from June,2013 to January,2014. The complainants have approached the opp.parties several times for supply of electric energy. But they did not pay any heed to it. So, the complainants, finding no other alternative filed this case before this Forum for redressal of their grievances.
3. Being noticed Ops appeared into the case and filed their written version jointly by denying all the facts averred in the complaint petition. It is their case that one Sri Nirakar Mallick was allowed for operation of 63 Kva S/S to provide power supply to Aliha II L.T. point alongwith other L.I. Points upto 27.01.2014. When the Hanuman Jew Pani Panchayat has deposited Rs.300/- towards re-connection fees on dtd. 27.01.2014, the Junior Manager(Elec.),Patrapur Section visited the spot of said Sri Nirakar Mallick who is the owner of 25 Kva S/S obstructed him not to install any parallel connection from his plot as he has already been allowed for power supply of 63 Kva S/S. The concerned Junior Manager(Electrical) has taken attempt to provide power suspply of 63 Kva S/S to Hanumanjew Pani panchayat by erection of 1 no. 11 KV pole but the said Sri Nirakar Mallick did not allow him to install any pole in his land. The said version of the Opp.parties did not counter by the complainants by producing any substantial evidence before this Forum. At the time of hearing the Opp.parties have submitted that they are ready to provide electric connection to the land of the complainants if they will provide the right of way. It is also the case of the Opp.parties that as per Regulation-13,Sub-section-6 of OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code-2004 as amended upto May-2011”The Distribution Licensee shall not be responsible for the delay, if any, in extending the supply, if the same is on account of problems relating to statutory clearances, right of way, acquisition of land, or the delay in consumer’s obligation to obtain approval of Chief Electrical inspector for his High Tension or Extra High Tension installation, or for any delay in compliance with requirements by the applicant or delay or for any other similar reasons beyond the reasonable control of the Distribution Licensee”. It is also mentioned in para-2 of the agreement conditions of supply.”The consumers have obtained a copy of the OERC distribution(condition of supply) code 2004 and understood its condition and undertook to observe and beside by all terms and condition stipulated therein to the extent they are applicable to them.. The said code as modified from time to time to the extent they are applicable shall be deemed to form part of this agreement”.
4. Before going to the merit of the case, it requires to decide whether the Opp.parties are deficient in supply of electric energy or not ?
5. From the aforesaid discussion, agreement filed by the complainant, written version of the Opp.Parties and from the OERC Code 2004 as amended upto May,2011, Section-13 sub-para-6 it is mentioned that it is the duty of the complainants to provide right of way to the Opp.parties for electrical connection. The power supply to cultivated land of Members of said Pani panchayat subject to facilitiation of right of way by the said Pani panchayat. As per the written version and submissions of Opp.Parties a dispute regarding right of way exists between one Nirakar Mallick with Members of said Pani Panchayat. In the circumstances, complainants-society failed to present before this Forum that there is no such dispute and said ‘Hanuman Jew Pani Panchayat’ is ready to provide right of way to the Opp.parties for supply of power supply to the agriculture land of the Members of said ‘Pani panchayat’ located at Aliha II point under Aul Block. The complainant in their complaint raised that non-availing of power supply to their respective agricultural lands, but on Demand of the Opp.parties, the complainant deposited certain amounts for different periods starting from 2011 to 2014 and the amount deposited with Opp.Parties for which the Opp.parties are not at all entitle to receive the amount when no power supply has been given to the complainants.
To our utter surprise, the Opp.parties have not whispered a single word regarding the allegations of excess payment neither reflected in the written version nor submitted during the case of hearing. In support of their claim complainants filed photo copies of money receipts, which shows that some amounts have been paid by the complainants on different dates towards energy charges and other charges. But receipt of such amount on part of the Opp.parties whether lawful or not ? as alleged by the complainants, can not answered at this stage as the Opp.Parties are completely silent in respect of excess or disputed payment. In the circumstances, we are of considered view that the complainants-society will make an written complaint before the concerned authorities(OP No.1 to 3) with detail of payment as per the complaint petition and the Opp.parties on considering the payments will satisfy the complainant-consumer, if any excess payment is made by the complainant-consumer the said amount will be refund to the complainant-consumer with 5 per cent interest.
Hear in this case, complainants have failed to provide any right of way to the Opp.parties for the connection of electric energy whereas the Opp.parties are ready to supply the electric re-connection to the complainants as per the Regulation-13,sub-para-6 of OERC Code. Hence, it is ordered:-
O R D E R
That, the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest against the Opp.Parties. The complainants are directed to provide the right of way as per the Regulation-13 of OERC Code and the Opp.parties are hereby directed to provide power supply to the complainants if the complainants will provide the right of way to them as per the Regulation -13 of OERC Code. As per the excess payments are concerned the matter will be decided as per our aforesaid observation. The process of payment dispute will be solved within one month of receipt of the written complaint of complainant-consumer.
No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 24th day of October,2014.
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
