Orissa

Cuttak

CC/339/2023

Rupsana Kahtun - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer(Commerce) - Opp.Party(s)

S K Samantaray

10 Jun 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK.

C.C.No.339/2023

            Rupsana Kahtun,

            W/o: Sk. Immam,

At:Pension Lane,P.O:Buxibazar,

Dist:Cuttack..                                                                   ... Complainant.

 

                      Vrs.

 

1.       Sub-Divisional Officer (Commerce),

TP Central Odisha Distribution Limited,

Sub-Division-IV,City Distribution Division-1,

Srivihar Colony,Cuttack-753008.

 

2.      Distribution Engineer,

TP Central Odisha Distribution Limited,

Sub-Division-IV,City Distribution Division-1,

Srivihar Colony,Cuttack-753008..

 

3.      Assistant Manager/Junior Manager,

Section-Tinkonia Bagicha,

                  Sub-Division-IV,CDD-1,

                             Cuttack-753001.                       ...Opp.Parties

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    09.10.2023

Date of Order:  10.06.2024

 

For the complainant:             Mr. A.Jena,Advocate.

For the O.Ps               :             Mr. A.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

                       

Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she is a consumer of the O.Ps and had taken electric connection to her premises where she occupies and also dwells therein.  On 5.7.2023, a routine check-up was made by the O.Ps at the premises of the complainant where they had found that the complainant was indulged in dishonest abstraction of electric energy by tampering the meter.  Accordingly, a notice U/S-135 of Electricity Act,2003 was served upon her thereby imposing a fine of Rs.56,961/- but the complainant had denied to such allegation as made against her.  On 7.8.2023 at about 11.30 A.M, the O.Ps had again made a verification at the house of the complainant  and as per the verification report, the meter was found to be defective since there was no display therein and it was thus according to the complainant; a manufacturing defect instead of being tampered as alleged earlier.  She was instructed by O.P no.2 to request O.P no.1 for installation of a new meter in her premises.  On 9.8.23 the complainant had filed a show-cause before the O.P no.1 intimating therein about the physical verification report and had also requested for installation of a new meter in her name.  But to her utter surprise on 11.8.23, the O.Ps had disconnected the electric connection provided to the premises of the complainant and had suggested her to deposit the fine amount as imposed earlier. The O.Ps had not paid any heed  to the urge of the complainant that her electric meter was defective and was not tampered.  She was rather compelled to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- in order to retrieve her electricity connection.  Having no other way out, the complainant has approached before this Commission with her complaint petition seeking direction to the O.Ps in order  to waive out the fine as imposed upon her to the tune of Rs.56,961/- and to reimburse her the fine amount of Rs.20,000/- that which she was compelled to deposit.  She has also sought for direction to the O.Ps so as to change the consumer account in her favour and also to pass any other order as deemed fit and proper.  Thus in this way, the complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the O.Ps to be reimbursed, a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to her towards her harassment and mental agony and also to pay her a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of her litigation.

Alongwith her complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove her case.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have jointly filed their written version.  According to the written version of O.Ps, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  According to them, on 14.7.2023, their Enforcement Team had inspected the premises of Consumer bearing number 80032389829 belonging to the complainant and had prepared  a physical verification report vide serial number 153745 dated 14.7.2023 wherein they have mentioned that there was A.C load found running but the meter display was found blank and no pulse blinks in the meter was noticed.  Subsequently after few seconds, the display of the meter starts showing parameter and takes speed blinking.  The Tc -seal was found to be absent and the meter body seal (MPT paper-seal) was found to be tampered.  The terminal upper meter body at joint point was found to be cracked.  The meter terminal cover was found pasted with gum for which it could not be opened.  The connected load was found to be of 12.070 Kw.  They could notice that the consumer had intentionally interfered with the meter in order to reduce the actual consumption in the meter for which they could opine that the status of the meter was “tampered”.  Accordingly, notice was issued U/S-135 of Electricity Act 2003 read with Regulation 163 of OERC (Conditions of Supply) Code,2019 to the consumer/complainant stating therein that she was indulged in unauthorised use of electricity by abstracting the energy illegally.  It is for the said reason she was provisionally assessed for a sum of Rs.56,961/- towards the total connected load of 12.070 Kw and for such unauthorised use of electricity.  The O.Ps had subsequently made a verification vide report no.48788 dated 7.8.2023 and on 10.8.2023 they had installed a new meter in the name of the complainant.  On 11.8.2023, the fine amount was settled to be of Rs.39,900/- which was to be paid in two instalments by the complainant and accordingly, the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- on 11.8.2023.  She had also agreed to pay the balance amount on 11.9.2023.  Accordingly, it is urged by the O.Ps through their written version that the petition as filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed it being not maintainable.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

 

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submissions as filed from both the sides as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly, the complainant was consuming electric energy from the O.Ps.  It is urged by the O.Ps that when their Enforcement Team had inspected the premises where the complainant resided, they could notice dishonest abstraction of energy by tampering the electrical meter for which notice as per law was served upon the complainant thereby they had to impose fine of Rs.56,961/- upon her.  Later on, the O.Ps had verified the meter of the complainant on 7.8.2023 which was found to be defective as there was  no display.  Thus, she was instructed to instal a new electrical meter.  On 11.8.2023, the O.Ps had installed a new meter when the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- out of the total amount of the fine as settled being reduced to Rs.39,900/-.

It is noticed here in this case that initially the electrical meter was tempered by the complainant for which the O.Ps had imposed fine upon her to the extent of Rs.56,961/- but later they have reduced the same to the tune of Rs.39,900/- on 11.8.2023 and accordingly the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the O.Ps thereby agreeing to pay the rest of the amount on 11.9.2023,  The complainant has also filed a copy of the receipt showing payment of Rs.20,000/- to the O.Ps on 11.8.2023.  Thus, when the complainant had tampered the meter and was unauthorisedly using the electric energy with dishonest intention and subsequently when she had agreed and had paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- against the fine imposed upon her for such unauthorised use of electricity; this Commission keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in mind do not find any deficiency in the service of the O.Ps in any manner.  Thus, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant cannot be said to be maintainable and the complainant is also not entitled to any relief as made by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 10^th day of June,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

 

                                                                               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                       President

                     

 

                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                             Member