Adv. For the Complainant: - Self
Adv. For O.Ps :- - Sri Chinmaya Kumar Mishra
Date of filing of the Case :- 09.06.2022
Date of Order :- 29.12.2022
JUDGMENT
Facts of the Case in nutshell :-
1 The complainant was allotted a municipality stall in July’2015 and started his business for his daily bread and butter. The above named OP supply electrical connection to his stall in the year 2005 with a meter having consumer No.911125070565 surprisingly a bill was given to the complainant on the same meter vide Consumer No.911125040022 and a sum of Rs.34,868.34p was shown as outstanding on the Complainant’s bill. The Complainant approach many times to rectify the bill but in vain. Then the complainant complain before GRF electrical(WESCO) Bolangir and GRF passed order to deduct Rs.10,505/- from the arrear bill but not whispering about the outstanding of Rs.34,868.34P. The billing department instead of deducting the same amount of Rs.10505/- adding to the bill by raising it. Again the complainant approach the GRF TPWODL on dt. 22.03.2022 and GRF by revision of the bill and order on dt.29.04.2022 to deduct Rs.27626.30P from the first bill showing the outstanding of Rs.752.40P. But all of a sudden on dated 26.03.2022 the staff of the OP came and disconnect the power supply by which the complainant sustained a heavy financial loss. The Complainant requested the OP not to disconnect the power but all in vain. Hence this Case.
To substantiate his case the complainant relied on the following documents.
1. Copy of the statement of electricity bills.
2. Copy of agreement with the Special Planning Authority for allotment of stall.
3. Copy of order dated 12.03.2021 of the GRF, TPWODL.
4. Copy of order dated 29.04.2022 of the GRF, TPWODL.
5. Copy of the latter dated 02.0.2022 address to the Collector Grievance Cell, Bolangir.
2. The rival contention to counter the complain the OP. Challenge the maintainability and jurisdiction of the case. The OP stated that in the case the Power supply is directly used for commercial purpose and denied other allegation of the complainant vividly. The Op further submit that the complainant booked U/S 126 of the Electricity Act and play hide and sick with this Commission to get sympathy and urged to dismissed the case.
The OP relies with the following document of counter the allegation.
(i). Statement of Billing for the Period of March’2001 to April 2021 (65 sheets)
(ii). Memo Copy of provisional assessment order dt.27.12.2021(2 Sheets)
(iii). Final assessment order dt.10.02.2022 and other same document filed by the Complainant.
3. Heard the complainant perused the materials on record with submission and vehement denials of the learned advocate of the OP with arguments.
4. On perusal of the documentary evidence available on the record it is found that by relying on the statement of account of filling the OP admits that it commits a blunder of mistake i.e the stall approved to the Complainant on July’2005 but the bill shows from 2001 showing an outstanding of Rs.34,868.34p in the first bill of the complainant. This is deceptive practice secondly on dated 26.03.2022 the OP disconnected the supply of power for an authorised use of electricity. U/S 126 of the electricity Act’2003.
5. Regarding the maintainability and jurisdiction of the case in hand it is pertinent of mention hence that Sec two of the Consumer protection Act states . The provision of this act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force as such it is crystal clear that the case in hand is within the jurisdiction l of the commission . Regarding the maintainability of this case the complainant depose that he took the electrical connection for the stall to earn the bread and butter the bane necessity of the family for livelihood . why should the complainant suffer for the fault of the advocate. As such the commission feels and consider it as livelihood and treated the complainant as Consumer.
6. Before jumped to the “Unauthorized use of electricity” U/s 126 of Electric Consumer Act.2003. Many superior courts bar the entry as because it is meant or assessment Sec126 is a disciplinary provision. In other words it is a punitive as well as penal provision for unauthorized use of electricity various orders and judgment from the apex courts touching this aspect from time to time.
When literally and benevolently interpret this section we found a wide range of this section assembled with two parts. The first part is for search and seizure and the second part is for assessment.
To protect the interest and right of the consumer the OP must have to satisfy the commission the first part of Sec.126 and if the commission satisfy that the search and seizure done in proper procedure but not in deceptive or arbitrary method then the commission without going to the 2nd part(the assessment) dismissed the complaint case instantly. A prudent man raised a question that how can the OP ascertain that the consumer using the power beyond authorize to him. The answer comes the Op must search the issue and he must seizure the tempering articles , before the witness. It is not worthy to mention here that if here is no such procedure provide in Electric Consumer Act then the OP follow the search and seizure procedure provided in Sec.165 of CRPC or any act prevailing in the time being force regarding search and seizure.
It is pertinent to mention here in the present case in hand there is no evidence of search and seizure followed by the OP nor any affidavit filed in the shape of evidence from any independent witness or any two of the Official witness . No Photograph of the tempering meter produced before the Commission nor proper and seizure list or any seizure witness No report of the electrical Inspector is seen on the record.
This Commission feels and observe that the OP is unable to counter the complainat and failed to prove the search and seizure of Sec126 without any logistic and authentic documentary evidence . As such the OP not to make such deceptive restrictive and coercive practice to harass the consumer.
HENCE ORDER
This commission pleased to waive Rs.27,832/- which imposed as fine to the Complainant and directed the complainant to Pay Rs. 6000/- as dues of TPWODL within a week after the proclamation of the order and the Op is directed to restore the Power supply to the stall of the complainant within 48 hours after receiving the payment from the complainant providing him anew meter and consumer number, failing which the Op is liable to pay sum of Rs.200/- per day till the restoration of power.
There shall be no order as to cost.
Accordingly the Case is Disposed.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TODAY I.E DATE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022.
(J.MISHRA) (R.K.TRIPATHY)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT(I/C)
