Orissa

Rayagada

CC/140/2017

M. Rajalaxmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri Guru Prasad Sahu

05 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 140 / 2017.                                                       Date.      5   .     5  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       Preident.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Smt. M. Rajalaxmi, W/O: M.Ramakrishna, Qr. No. C-22/3, J.K.Paper Mill colony,J.K.Pur,    Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                          …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Executive  Engineer,  SOUTH.CO.,  Electrial  Division, Rayagada.

2.The  Sub-divisional Officer, SOUTH.CO.,  Electrial Sub-Division, Rayagada.

3. The Jr. Engineer, Electrical Section, Sikarpai, Dist:Rayagada.

                                                                                                            .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri Bistnu  Prasad Panda, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri  Ashish  Panda, Deputy Manager(Legal), Rayagada.

.

JUDGMENT

                The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non revision excess demand Electrical bill bearing consumer No.311001040132, for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

On being noticed the O.Ps appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

  Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps bearing consumer No. 311001040132.

The main  grievance of the complainant  was that excess bill amount a  sum of Rs.1,35,768/- was sent to the complainant  by the O.Ps during the month of  August, 2017.

The O.P. in their written  version para No.1 contended that the above  case filed by the  complainant is not legally  maintainable in the eyes  of  law in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

The O.Ps  in support of their case relied the citation it is held in Appeal No. 225 of 2006  on Dt. 12.7.2012 the Hon’ble  National Commission, New Delhi  in the case of  Lingaraj Vermicelly Works Pvt. Versus SOUTH. CO  wherein observed  “Commercial consumers are not coming under the definition of the word ‘Consumer’  as given in Section  2(1)(d)(ii) of the  C.P. Act, 1986.

The O.Ps. in their written  version para No.1 contended that the  complainant is a commercial consumer and running a mill having connected load 30 K.W. at  400 Volts. Due to defective meter the consumer was billed on provisional basis from Ocober,2014 to August, 2015 calculating  average consumption 501 units per month. A new meter was replaced in the place of defective meter during the month of September,2015.  After  the installation of the new meter the consumption was high in compare to the provisional billing. Regulatin-7 of the OERC supply code, provides that billing with Defective  Meter. Considering the Regulation the bill has been revised  taking account the average three months consumption after the installation of the new meter. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 1,35, 841/- has been raised and demanded for payment (copies of the revision statement and bill abstract are attached in the file which are marked as Annexure- I & 2).

During the course of hearing the complainant submitted that he has been paying the energy charges to the O.Ps regularly without fail. Further the complainant submitted that as usual  he went to deposit the actual energy charges of Rs.10,892/-  per month but the O.Ps did not oblige rather threatened to him the electric supply will be disconnected unless the amount of arrear is paid.

Admittedly the complainant is an electric based industrial unit and for that it had taken power connection from the O.Ps for  30 K.W. load at 400 volts in three phases bearing consumer No. 311001040132. Agreement between the parties were executed.

Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the C.P. Act, 1986 defines the word ‘Consumer’ but it excludes the person who avails of any service for a commercial purpose.  Since the complainant is a  proprietor of National board mill a private limited company  and had obtained  the connection for a commercial pupose, it would not fall within the definition of the word ‘Consumer’ as  given  in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the C.P. Act,1986.

 

                Further this forum relied another citation it is held and reported  in 2009 (III) CPJ-5  (S.C.) date of decision  09.02.2009 in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Vrs. Ashok Iron works Pvt. Ltd.  where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed  “A company is not a ‘person’ under Section 2(1)(m)  of the  C.P. Act,  1986 and the complainant is not a ‘Consumer  within the Section  2(1()d)(i)  of the  said Act since it purchased  electricity for commercial production. Further  the Court held that the amendment to the CPA effective from 15 March 2003, excluding services availed of for commercial purposes”.

This forum completely agreed with views taken  and the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ and the complaint filed by  it is  not maintainable before the forum under C.P. Act,1986.. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled any  relief from this forum and   liable to be dismissed.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

 

 

ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. In the circumstances there is no order as to cost.    Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

 

If the complainant  is  not satisfied with the revision of the electricity bill by the O.Ps  he  is  at  liberty  free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.  

           

            Further this  forum ordered  the OPs not to claim any amount   towards bill for the month of August, 2017  a sum of Rs. 1,35,768/- as demanded  by them bearing consumer No. 311001040132 and they can only claim the complainant the regular consumption bill  till finalization of the petition by the competent/appellate authority,  if the complainant prefers for any relief with in the period of limitation in the proper court of law having jurisdiction.

 

“The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay  as reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583   the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed   the above  point.

 

The interim order passed  on Dt.10.10.2017   by this forum  made final with the above direction.

 

Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this          5^th.   Day of   May,  2018.

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                                                                             President