Orissa

Baleshwar

CC/214/2015

Sri Dinabandhu Das, aged about 42 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Electrical, NESCO, Soro Electrical Division - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Dhirendra Kumar Das & Others

05 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BALASORE
AT- COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, P.O, DIST- BALASORE-756001
 
Complaint Case No. CC/214/2015
 
1. Sri Dinabandhu Das, aged about 42 years
S/o. Late Budhiram Das, At- Raigadia, P.O- Turigadia, P.S- Khaira, Dist -Balasore.
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Electrical, NESCO, Soro Electrical Division
At/P.O/P.S- Soro, Dist- Balasore.
Odisha
2. S.D.O, Electrical, NESCO, Khaira
At/P.O/P.S- Khaira, Dist- Balasore.
Odisha
3. Junior Manager, Electrical, NESCO, Gandibed Section Office
At/P.O- Gandibed, P.S- Khaira, Dist- Balasore.
Odisha
4. Junior Assistant, Akhankhya, Electrical Section, Gandibed
At/P.O- Gandibed, P.S- Khaira, Dist- Balasore.
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHANTANU KUMAR DASH PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SARAT CHANDRA PANDA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sri Dhirendra Kumar Das & Others, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Sri Yudhisthira Nayak, Advocate
 Sri Yudhisthira Nayak, Advocate
 Sri Yudhisthira Nayak, Advocate
Dated : 05 Jul 2017
Final Order / Judgement

                         The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Executive Engineer, Electrical, NESCO, Soro Electrical Division, Soro, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O, Electrical, NESCO, Khaira, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Junior Manager, Electrical, NESCO, Gandibed Section Office, Gandibed, Balasore.

                     1. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant is a bonafide Consumer under the O.Ps vide Consumer No.SK-320076 corresponding to new Account no.423413020006. The Complainant is paying all his electric bills before the O.Ps regularly from the year 2000 till date. While the meter was functioning correctly, the O.Ps forcibly installed a new meter in the premises of Complainant on 25.06.2015 and on protest, the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it, rather threatened to disconnect the electric supply to the premises of the Complainant, which is illegal and unlawful. Thereby, the O.Ps imposed meter rent @ Rs.40/- per month in the electric bill of June, 2015 to July, 2015 and accordingly, the Complainant enquired the matter with O.P No.3 and O.P No.2, but they also did not pay any heed to it. Thus, the Complainant served a legal notice to O.P No.2 through his Advocate on 08.09.2015, but the O.P No.2 did not take any steps in the matter, rather they served electric bills for the month of August and September, 2015 imposing meter rent of Rs.40/- there on. Prayer for revision of meter rent imposed by the O.Ps and not to disconnect the electric supply to the premises of the Complainant.

                     2. Written Version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability as well as its cause of action. They have further submitted that due to non-payment of electric bills in time by the Complainant amounting huge arrears, thereby the Complainant has availed One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme benefit after several request made by the O.Ps. The defective old meter of the Complainant was replaced by a new one and accordingly, meter rent of Rs.40/- was imposed in the electric bill as per NESCO guidelines. The O.P No.2 and O.P No.3 explained about rules and regulations to the Complainant, but he has not satisfied. Thus, the Complainant has to pay the meter rent, since meter has been supplied by the O.Ps. Hence, no need for revision of meter rent, thus the meter will be maintained by the O.Ps forever.

                     3. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law.

(ii) Whether the old meter was defective.

(iii) Whether the meter rent imposed by the O.Ps on the Complainant is genuine and supported as per Law. 

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ? 

                     4. In view of the contrary averments of the Parties in order to substantiate the same, both the Parties have filed & relied upon some documents in support of their pleas. Perused the same. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he is a bonafide and regular Consumer under the O.Ps and paid his Electricity dues regularly. When his meter was functioning smoothly and correctly, on 25.06.2015 the Officials of NESCO, Gandibed Section and Akhankhya staffs of Gandibed have forcibly installed a new meter in his premises in spite of his protest and threatened to disconnect his electric connection in case of non-allowing them to install the new meter. In the electric bill for the month of May-15 to June-15, he has paid the electric bill without meter rent of Rs.40/-, but in the electric bill for the month of June-15 to July-15, the electric bill shows that the meter rent was imposed of Rs.40/- by the O.Ps and on his protest, the meter reader of NESCO could not give any satisfactory answer. Then he has approached the O.Ps many times, but failed. But, after serving Advocate notice, when defect was not removed from the bill, he takes shelter of this Forum to pass necessary order to revise meter rent imposed on him by the O.Ps. Perused the alleged electric bills submitted, where meter rent was imposed on him by the O.Ps. On the other hand, the Advocate for O.Ps has argued that the Complainant is not a bonafide Consumer and he has availed One Time settlement scheme benefit for huge arrear outstanding for non-payment of electric bills. A new meter was installed because the old meter was defective, so meter rent @ Rs.40/- per month was charged in the electric bills as per NESCO guidelines. So, the Complainant has not got any relief as prayed for. According to the Rule-56 of OERC (Distribution and Conditions of Supply) Code-2004, in case of new connection/ replacement of meter, the Consumer, in accordance with Sections-55 and regulations framed under Section-73 of the Act, may himself procure the meter either from the vendors certified by the licensee conforming to licensee’s technical specifications or requests the licensee to supply the meter and charge meter rent as per the tariff order. In the Rule-58 of the said regulation, it has been mentioned that the meter and associated equipment shall be inspected by the Engineer prior to their commissioning in the service. If the Engineer has reason to believe that the meter is incorrect, he may at any time remove the existing meter supplied by the licensee for the purpose of testing in accordance with existing Rules, Regulations and provisions of the Act. The Consumer shall not be entitled to object to such removal. For the period, the meter is not refixed again after testing, the billing shall be done taking into consideration the average 3 (three) months energy bill after reinstallation of the meter. So from the regulation, it shows that meter has to be removed, when it is found to be incorrect, thereafter a new meter should be installed. In the instant case, the Complainant has claimed that his meter was correct, when the claim of the O.Ps that the meter was defective. But, no material is placed from the side of O.Ps to show that the meter was defective. So, for want of any material evidence, it cannot be said that meter was defective. Strangely enough, we found that the Complainant by moving one step ahead has filed two electric bills of one Gajendra Ram for the month of June-14 and August-15, which is not relevant in this case. So, this shows carelessness of the Complainant.

                    5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, now this Forum come to the conclusion that without any reason, the O.Ps installed a new meter and charging of meter rent clearly amounts to unfair Trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. So, the Complainant is not liable to pay the meter rent and the electric bills should be revised accordingly, waiving out the meter rent as charged w.e.f July, 2015 onwards, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:- 

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps without any cost. The O.Ps are directed to revise the alleged electric bills, waiving out the meter rent as charged w.e.f July, 2015 onwards within 30 days of receipt of this Order. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 5th day of July, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHANTANU KUMAR DASH]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. SARAT CHANDRA PANDA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.