Orissa

Jajapur

CC/14/2015

Mehurin Nisa Bibi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,NESCO,Jajpur - Opp.Party(s)

Badri Narayan Panda

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                                      Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                                      2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                      3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                 

        Dated the 26th day of August,2015.

                                        C.C.Case No.14 of 2015

Mehurin Nisa Bibi, W/O Late SK.Asif Ali

Vill. Purusottampur ,

P.S/ Dist. Jajpur.

…… ……....Complainant .

                                     (Versus)                                                       

1.Manager,NESCO,Jajpur.

 2.Asst.Manager,NESCO,Jajpur.                                                   

                                                                                                                       ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

For the Complainant:                      Sri  B.N. Panda, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                      Self.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Date of order:   26. 08. 2015.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY, MEMBER .

                        The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

                        The fact relevant in the present dispute shortly are that as per complaint petition the petitioner is a domestic consumer under the O.Ps. bearing consumer No.JTT 2909. The petitioner was paying the electricity dues regularly as per a fixed demand of Rs.551/- per month to the O.Ps. There is no outstanding dues against the petitioner.

                        That on dt.13.11.2013 the departmental staff of the O.Ps. inspected  the premises of the petitioner and found that the meter of the petitioner is defective and the petitioner though was ready to install a new meter at her own cost and prayed to install a new meter but the departmental authority of the O.Ps. without installing  the new meter fixed 2.5 K.W as contract load and the monthly electricity dues Rs.2215/- . Thereafter illegally disconnected the power supply without any intimation or prior notice to the petitioner and reconnected the power supply, after receiving a sum of Rs.20,000/- but till now the O.Ps. have not installed a new meter insisted  several request from the side of the petitioner.

                        Accordingly the petitioner finding no other way has come with the complain petition with his prayer to direct the O.Ps. to explain under what circumstances without installing a new meter assessed the  contract load as  2.5 K.W and collect excess money from the illiterate lady.Accordingly the O.Ps may be directed to install a new meter in the premises of the petitioner in place of her defective meter and refund the excess amount which has been received on 13.11.13 from the petitioner and award compensation of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioner .

                        After notices the O.Ps. have appeared and filed their written version denying the allegations of the complaint petition. In the written version the O.Ps. have taken the following defence:-

That the petitioner is a domestic consumer. The consumption of the petitioner  never comparable to the number of rooms, but it depends upon the electrical appliances he has so also use by the consumer.

On 13.11.13, verification was made to the petitioner  premises and it was found that the load of the consumer was 2.5 K.W with meter status found defective as compared to CD 1K.W . It is false to say that the department arbitrarily fixes the  contract load 2.5 K.W.

It is false to say that on the date of verification the petitioner was willing to install a meter, if so why the consumer was not ready to install meter previously at her own cost and was  paying  the energy charges on fixed basis since long .

It is also false to say that the power supply of the petitioner  was disconnected without any intimation and the consumer paid Rs.20,000/-for reconnection of line. The petitioner may be directed to produce the proof of disconnection so  also payment of Rs.20,000/-.

It is false to say that the old lady rushed every day for installation of meter at her own cost to resolve of her grievance but there was no grievances lodged by the petitioner. There is no problem at any time if meter will be installed at the cost of consumer.

It is false to say  that the department collects any money illegally from the consumer. The consumer paid the amount towards energy charges as per law always. So there is no scope arises for refund of money to the consumer.

                        Actually as per verification made to the premises of the petitioner, assessment was made to the petitioner due to excess load as compared to CD 1K.W and final amount of Rs.22,355/- was imposed during Jan’14 and the consumer paid Rs.10,000/- during Jan’14 vide MR No.16991 / 398058 /27.01.14 and 16991 / 398182 /31.01.14 . A new meter bearing No.NES 27912 has been installed during Feb’14 at the cost of petitioner. The meter was running OK up to July’14. The fact stated above by the consumer is wrong false and baseless.

                        The bill of the consumer has been drawn on the basis of 360 units/  from Aug’14 due to defective status of meter. A new meter will be installed very soon and the 360 units / month bill ( from Aug’14 to till the date of installation of meter ) will be revised as per section 97 of OERC Code,2004.

                        In view of the above pleadings  we have perused the record along with documents and ledger copy ,inspection report filed by both the parties in details and inclined to dispose of the dispute as per observations below:-

Admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps. who has filed the present dispute challenging the action of the O.Ps for assessment  the demand load  as 2.5 K.W and  of penalty under 126 of Electricity Act,2003 and as well as prayer to install a new meter in the place of the defective meter and correction of inflated bill assessed by the O.Ps.

                        It is also cristal clear that the O.Ps. admitted in their written version supported with ledger copy filed from the side of the O.Ps. that the  energy charged has been assessed on average / load factor basis which is contrary to Regulation -86 and 93(8) of OERC Code-2004.

11.  As regards penalty under 126 of Electricity Act 2003 as assessed by O.Ps., we are in the considered view that this Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain such claim as per provision of Electricity Act-2003 in view of the observation of  Hon’ble Supreme Court  (U.P Power Corporation Ltd,& others Vrs. Anis Ahmad) 2013(3) CLT-227(S.C) wherein it is held that

““The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction  to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made U/S 126  and offences under section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act-2003.”

                        In the above narrated clarification from our side we dispose of the dispute as per the order given below.

                                                                    O R D E R

                        In the net result the dispute is disposed of with the observation that as regards penalty and fixed demand load 2.5 K.W of U/S 126 of the Indian  Electricity. Act. 2003 the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate  steps in the proper Forum if she so likes .As regards revision of provisional / Load factor billing the O.Ps. are directed to revise the same after installing a new tested meter in place of the defective meter at the premises of the petitioner as per section 97 of OERC Code-2004 from August-2014 till installation of new meter within three months after receipt of this order. No cost.

         This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of August ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.                                                                                                             

 

(Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )                                                            (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                         

           President.                                                                                       Member.                                                                      

                                                                                       Typed to my dictation & corrected by me                                                                                                                                                            

 

 (Miss Smita Ray)                                                                      (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                          

       Member.                                                                                         Member.