Orissa

Jajapur

CC/7/2015

Smt.Minati Prava Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

NESCO Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.K.Nath

21 Jul 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 21st day of July,2015.

C.C.Case No.07 of 2015

Smt. Minati Prava Das, W/O Subash Chandra Das

Vill.-Chandeswar ,P.O.-Debidwar    

P.S-Jajpur, Dist.- Jajpur                                                          ……………..Complainant .                                                                                              

                        (Versus)

1. NESCO Ltd., Regd Office at plot No.123, sector-A, Zone-A,

    Mancheswar Industrial Estate Rasulgarh, BBSR-10, represented

    By its Executive Engineer, NESCO, Jajpur Electrical Division,

    At/P.O/P.S/Dist.-Jajpur.

2.S.D.O, NESCO, Jajpur Electrical Sub-division section-1

    At/P.O./Dist.-Jajpur.    

                                                                                                        …………………………Opp.Parties.       

                                                                                                            

For the Complainant:                Sri B.B. Sahoo ,M.K.Hotha, Advocates.

For the Opp. Parties:                Self..

   

                                                                                       Date of order   : 21.07.2015  .

MISS SMITA  RAY, LADY  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 as per complaint petition are that the petitioner is a consumer under the O.Ps. bearing consumer No.612121030336  (old –JTT-6413) . The petitioner was paying the electrical dues of the O.Ps. as per her consumption reflected by meter reading regularly. That from June-2013 the O.Ps. reflected in the electric bill that the meter  of the petitioner was defect and prepared the electric dues as per average / load factor basis.

                        That on dt.24.11.2014 the petitioner reported to O.P no.2 regarding  defective of his meter vide written application filed as Annexture-1 requesting  to replace a new meter on place of the defective meter. Then some days after the petitioner again requested vide written application on dt.26.12.2014 filed as Annexture-2 requesting O.P.No.1 regarding her defect meter and asked either to install a new meter or give permission to her to purchase a new meter. Thereafter  the husband of the petitioner approached the accountant  of  the O.P no.2 on dt.05.01.2015 for install a new meter in the premises of the complainant . But the said accountant misbehaved her husband  and threatened that if  the new average  / load factor dues is  not be deposited in time the power supply will be disconnected from  her premises .

                        Accordingly finding no other way the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct  the O.Ps.to replace a new meter in place of and as per verage consumption of the new meter the load factor / average bill may be corrected from June-2013 till date and award consumption of Rs.50,000/- on the O.Ps.

                        After notices the O.Ps. have appeared and filed their written version denying the allegation of the petitioner . In the written version the O.Ps. have taken the following defence : that the petitioner is consumer under the O.Ps. bearing consumer no.JTT6413(612121030336). It is false that the petitioner approached the O.P. no.2 (S.D.O, NESCO) for installation of a new energy meter on 24.11.14 . On 24.11.14 the petitioner approached Executive Engineer,   JTED, Jajpur for installation of meter. It was also requested for installation of . meter at the cost of Deptt, as she has no money to purchase the meter. We are astonished why the petitioner approached the Executive Engineer,  JTED for installation of meter on 24.11.14, though the meter  was defective from May’13 . The consumer has been paying the energy bill regularly and availing rebate . So it is within the knowledge of the consumer that the meter was defective from May-13.

                        Verification was made to the premises of the consumer on 17.11.14 and as per verification report the load of the consumer was found out 2 K.W . Basing of the verification report a provisional order was issued to the consumer vide T.O Letter no.1388/17.11.14 and the consumer denied to receive the provisional order as it was sent through the Deptt. Person. Immediately the consumer approached the Executive Engineer  for installation of meter, though it was declare defective from May-13. On 10.12.14, the department people rush to the petitioner house for installation of a new energy meter after receiving the telephonic direction from the Executive Engineer, JTED, Jajpur Town , but it was simple denied by the consumer and meter was not installed due to non co-operation of the consumer.

                        On 26.12.14 the consumer submit an application for installation of meter with crocodile tear. The fact stated in the previous application was totally differing with this application. In the application dt.26.12.14, the consumer disclosed that she had intimated several times to the department for installation of meter, which  is false, baseless and ill motive of the consumer. We pray before the Forum, direction may please be given to the petitioner to submit the previous application if any for installation of meter before Hon’ble Forum, even if it was not disclosed in his previous application ( virtually the first application). In his first application, it was requested for installation of meter at the cost of department as she has no money, but in the second application it was requested for installation of meter at the cost of either. On 05.01.2015, again the consumer refused to install meter in her premises and charged the department people why there was verification made to her premises. The husband of the consumer charged  to the department staff and threatens that he will take the shelter of the court law and then the meter will be installed as the verification was false as per his version. It is false that on 05.01.15 ,the husband of the petitioner approached the Accountant for installation of meter. It is also false that the Accountant misbehaved the husband of the petitioner.

                        A new meter is installed on 16.04.15 and the bill so charged from Nov’14 to the date of installation will be revised as per section 97 of OERC Code,2004. Prior to Nov’14 the bill of the consumer will not be  revised as the premises of the consumer was verified and excess load was found out as compared to CD 1K.w.

                         In view of above clarification we have perused the record along with documents and ledger copy filed by both the parties in detail and inclined to dispose of the dispute as per the observation below:

1.  Admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the O.ps. who has filed the present dispute for 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 period from May-2013 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.P, we are in the considered view that this Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain such claim as per provision of Electricity Act-2008 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).

                        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 our observation that as regards penalty of U/S 126 of the  Electricity. Act. 2003 the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate  steps in the proper Forum if he so likes .As regards revision of provisional / Load factor billing the O.Ps. are directed to revise the same from May-2013  till date of new meter install as per section 97 of OERC Code-2004 within one month after receipt of this order. No cost.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of  July ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

 

               

                                                                                                (Miss Smita  Ray)

                                                                                                   Lady  Member.

(Shri Biraja Prasad Kar)                                        Typed to my dictation & corrected by me                                             

           President                                                                   

 

 

                                                                                         (Miss Smita  Ray)

 (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                            Lady  Member.

          Member.