Orissa

Jajapur

CC/23/2017

Sri Natabara Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

NESCO Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Bhakata BatshalaSahoo,Manoj Kumar Nath

04 Dec 2017

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                             Dated the 4th day of Decembermber,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.23 of 2017

Sri Natabara Das  , S/O Late Bhoi Das  

Vill. Gopalpur  , P.O. Lalbag ,

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

                                                  (Versus)

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

Industgrial 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, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1 and 2           Self.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   04.12.2017.

SHRI PITABAS  MOHANTY, MEMBER

            Deficiency in energy service is the grievance of the petitioner .

            The fact as stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition is  that the petitioner is a domestic consumer under the O.Ps bearing consumer no. JTT 1153 . The petitioner was  / is paying the electrical dues regularly to the O.Ps as per his consumption and  as per  meter reading. At present on dt.13.3.17 the petitioner got one notice bearing no. 157 dt.01.03.17 from O.P.no.2’s  officials wherein it is observed that the petitioner is liable to pay arrear outstanding of Rs.42,924/  within 15 days ,failing which the power  supply will be disconnected as per provision  of  section- 56 of Electricity  Act 2003. Hence the petitioner filed the present case with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to re-assess the electricity bill of the petitioner as per consumption of new meter by  taking in the average  basis and the claim of the O.Ps  may be corrected accordingly .

            The O.Ps after appearance  filed their written version  taking the pleas that the bill from April’04 to November’08 has been revised on the basis of average consumption of August’04 to November’08 (10003-302) /26= 373 units/ bimonthly .  The reading were increased during Sept’05 to Jan’07 in the proportionate manner. The meter bearing No.261413 was declared  defective during Aug’05 and load factor bills were drawn during Aug’05 to Nov’06 due  to  defectiveness of the meter and subsequently replaced by a new one bearing no.3988701 during Dec’06 to jan’07 with initial reading (3651-71) =3588. It is clearly established that the meter bearing no.3988701 was installed previously after the meter bearing no.261413 was declared  defective, but due to omission the meter bearing no.3988701 was not reflected in the consumer’s account at the due time and reflected at latter stage (during Dec’06-jan’07 ). So the meter reading was at the end of jan’07 was 3651 in the meter bearing no.3988701. The meter bearing no.3988701 had been in the continuous process and giving normal consumption up to Dec’11 with final reading as 13860. As there was no complain lodged by the consumer during that period., the meter bearing no.3988701 was an authenticated fact and argument put by the consumer seems to be wrong that a new meter was first time installed during Oct’2016 in his premises. Though actual consumption billings were made and regular monthly bills were supplied to the consumer, the reason of outstanding dues is irregular payment made by the consumer towards his actual consumption for a long period. Neither the consumer had approached for a duplicate bill nor for the actual billing in the past, it is presumed that there was meter in the consumer premises and correct billing was made during that period.

1. As per rule the bill of the consumer should be revised from Aug’05 to Nov’06 on the basis of average consumption of Dec’06 to May’07 ( average consumption is (71-485 +499) /3=352 units / bimonthly ) as per regulation 97 of OERC Regulation,200.
2. But for the better interest of the consumer we have revised on the basis of 373 units /  bimonthly from Apr’04 to Dec’08 as derived

a. If we revised as per I ) there will be an upward revision and the arrears will be increased by 964.03 and if we revise as per ii) the arrears will be reduced by  Rs.4139.60

b. For better interest  of consumer and natural justice we have adopted the ii) procedure.

2)From Jan’12 to Dec’15 the bill of the consumer has been revised as per regulation 97 of OERC Regulation-2004.

3)The bill from Oct’2000 to March’04 has not been revised as there was no meter in that period and billing was drawn on the basis of Load factor as per rule.

The bill of the consumer has been revised while taking into consideration the interest of the consumer and revisionary effect has been given during Dec’16. The total withdrawn amount is Rs.21322.69. It is further stated by the O.Ps that the petitioner unnecessarily drag the O.P  to the court of law only because to avoid payment of arrears. The petitioner has argued to revise on the basis of Rs.120/ per  month is not acceptable as per law. Everything should be as per law and nothing should be done on the basis of will and wish of anybody. The petitioner should be directed to produce any copy of complain that was addressed to the O.P  previously in relation to this.  Without any basis the petitioner has filed this case .The O.P  was not deficient in providing any service to the consumer. The O.P has followed all the procedures that have been laid down at every stage. There was no inaction made by the O.P in providing service to the consumer. Rather the petitioner has not only wasted the valuable time of the Hon’ble Forum but also unnecessarily blamed and drawn the O.P to the litigation without going through the record .  As such the petitioner may be penalized as per law ,as the O.P has taken sufficient steps in favour of the petitioner.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the side of the petitioner. After perusal of the record and documents  / ledger copy filed from both the sides we observed  that

(1) it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is a domestic consumer under the O.Ps vide consumer no. JTR 1153.

(2) it is also undisputed fact that the petitioner did not pay electricity dues regularly as per his statement on the complaint petition. On the other hand the O.Ps have prepared the electricity bill as per their sweet will  in average / load factor  without  actual consumption basis .

We have also  verified   entire ledger copy of the above consumer filed from the side of the O.Ps, . It is not known under what circumstances the existing meter was replaced three times in the premises of the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that maximum month of the bill was prepared on average/ load factor basis . Thereafter we have verified  the status of the present meter presently installed in the premises of the petitioner in Jan’16  ,which indicates  the actual consumption from jan-16 till Feb’17  the monthly reading of the petitioner would not exceed 100 unit per month .On the other hand the load factor /average bill prepared by the O.Ps from Nov’2000  to Dec’15 is violates the regulation 86 and 93 of  OERC code- 2004 but also contrary to observation of Hon’ble N.C reported in 2008(2) CPR-318-N.C and Hon’bel  Supreme  court reported in 1997(1)CLT-435-SC wherein it is held that :

            In case bill is not prepared as per meter reading it is deficiency in service , for which the petitioner suffered mental agony and harassment.

Hence this order

             Without taking any adverse inference the prayer of the petitioner is partly allowed .The O.P  is directed to recalculate the electricity bill from Nov- 2000 to Dec’2015 after taking the average consumption from the present newly installed meter bearing No. KNCG83258 installed from Jan’2016  as per Regulation -97 of OE RC  Code- 2004 within one month after receipt of this order .No cost.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th  day of December,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.