Orissa

Jajapur

CC/22/2016

Kamadeb Barik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O-2,NESCO,Electrical - Opp.Party(s)

S.Panda

06 Feb 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 6th day of February,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.22 of 2016

Kamadeb Barik  S/O Kalandi ch. Barik

Vill. Karimabad, P.O.Markandapur

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

                   (Versus)

1.S.D.O,Jajpur-2 ,NESCO, Electrical , At/P.O/Dist.  Jajpur.

2.Executive Engineer,Electrical, NESCO, At/P.O/Dist. Jajpur .

                                                                                                                          ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                           Sri S.Panda, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                            Self.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   06.02.2017.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,   MEMBER .

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

                        The facts relevant for the present dispute as per complaint petition in brief is  that  the petitioner is a domestic consumer of electricity  under the O.Ps. having consumer No.JTR-1519 . The petitioner was  paying the electrical dues regularly and obtained receipt.

                        That in the month of February-2016 the petitioner received a disconnection  notice from the O.Ps. which reflected arrear outstanding amount of Rs.57,543/-. Thereafter the petitioner approached the O.Ps. for rectification showing the official ledger copy of the arrear outstanding amount which reflected in the disconnection notice. But the O.Ps without taking any steps regarding grievance of the petitioner threatened that if  the arrear dues will not be deposited in time ,the power supply will be disconnected from the premises of the complainant.

                        Accordingly  finding no other way the petitioner has filed the present dispute with a prayer to direct the O.Ps. not to disconnect the power supply from  the premises of the complainant.

                        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 the defence:-

                        It is true that the petitioner is a consumer under the O.Ps. It is also true that the consumer is consuming electricity for domestic purposes. It is false to  say that the petitioner is paying his dues regularly as revealed  from the ledger of the consumer. It is false to say that the O.Ps. Suddenly issued a notice for disconnection on dt.28.02.16 demanding outstanding bill for Rs.57,543/-. It is false to say that the complainant demanded the official record of the outstanding bill for Rs.57,543/- and refusal made by the O.Ps. for the same.

                        It is further stated that it is true that without official record, it is impossible for anyone to know the reason of outstanding amount. But the complainant has been receiving his energy bill regularly. “ As per regulation 93(11) of OERC Regulation 2004, if for any reason the consumer does not receive the bill for the billing cycle within two weeks of the end of the billing cycle, it would be the obligation of the consumer to approach the engineer and collect a duplicate bill”. Even if the consumer could have collected the data through RTI, Act.

                        There is no deficiency of service in issuance  of disconnection notice, as the petitioner  has been receiving the energy bill regularly and total arrears are within the knowledge of the petitioner .

                        The petitioner is a domestic consumer bearing consumer No.JTR 1519 under NO-11 Electrical Section, Jajpur Town with CD 1 KW. The energy bill was issued on the basis of Load Factor up to Jan’04  as there was no meter ( as per OERC Regulation ,1998) . A new meter was installed during Feb’04 with Initial Reading 14. The meter was continued up to May’08. The meter so installed during Feb’04 was found defective during June’08 and 153 units / month have been charged from June’08 to Jan’10 . A new meter bearing No.069119 was installed during Feb’10 and due to defectiveness of the meter a new meter bearing No.774803 was installed on 18.10.12 . The bill of the consumer was charged on 144 units /month from July’10 to Sept’12 during defect of the meter. From october’12 to February’16 the bill of the consumer has been prepared on the basis of actual .

                        On the date of hearing we heard the argument from both the sides. At the time of argument the advocate for the petitioner pointed out that after verification  the ledger copy he found that some amount which was paid by the petitioner was not debited from the arrear shows in the ledger copy filed by the O.Ps.

                        In view of the above pleadings we have perused the record along with documents and ledger copy filed from both the sides in details and inclined to dispose of the dispute as per our observation below:-

                        It is crystal clear that as reflected in the ledger copy filed from the side of the O.Ps. that the O.Ps. have assessed the energy charges in some months of the petitioner on load factor /average basis which is not only  contrary to regulation -86 and 93(8) of OERC Code-2004 but also contrary on observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2008(2) CPR-318-N.C and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1997(1) CLT-435-S.C, It is held that :

                        “ In case bill is not prepared as per meter reading it is deficiency in service “.

                        In the above observation from our side we dispose of the dispute as per order given below:-                                                       

O R D E R

                In the  result without drawing any adverse inference,   the dispute is disposed of. The O.Ps. are directed to revise the provisional / load factor billing  as per section -97 of the OERC Code-2004 and re-calculate the arrear after the petitioner produce the money receipt if any amount not debited earlier from the ledger  within one  months after receipt of the order .  As regards arrear outstanding  electricity dues after revision  the O.Ps.  may recover the same as per law. No cost.                                                

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6th day of February,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.