Orissa

Debagarh

cc/33/2015

Sri Saroj Kumar Dash, aged about 45 yrs. S/o-Lt. Narahari Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Manoranjan Nanda

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

C.D.C.NO.31/2015.

            Sri Pratap Ch. Mahapatra Member & Smt. Jayanti Pradhan Member (W)

Shri Saroj Dash,

Aged about – 45 Years

S/O. Late Narahari Dash,

R/O – Rajamunda,

At/PO/PS/ Dist/-Deogarh.                                       …       Complainant.

                     Versus

The Executive Engineer, WESCO

Deogarh Division, Deogarh

At/PO/PS/Dist/-Deogarh                                          …       Opp.Party

 

Date of hearing 02.09.2016         Date of Order 19.10.2016

            Counsel for the parties             :

                   For the Complainant           :         Shri Manaranjan Nanda, Advocate

         For the Opposite Parties   :         Shri R.K. Pradhan, Advocate

 

PRATAP CHANDRA MAHAPATRA, MEMBER - Factual matrix of the case in brief is that, the complainant, a permanent resident of Rajamunda, PO/PS/Dist – Deogarh is a consumer of Electricity under the Deogarh Division of WESCO with Consumer No.41410401179. Since date of connection his electricity bill was in the range of Rs.60/- to Rs.70/- on the basis of actual meter reading till the date complaint is filed, which he had been paying regularly. A year back i.e. towards the end of October 2014 the meter through which supply was being made went out of order and OP inspite of timely intimation and several requests failed to replace the defective meter with a new meter. On the other hand bills claiming different amounts in different months were presented to him which resulted the complainant to pay Rs.3000/- against Rs.700/- for the period meter was not substituted. This fact he brought to the notice of OP requesting to correct the Bills on the basis of average of his actual consumption several times but to no effect. Thus the arrear is increasing month after month and the complainant is unable to pay.  Hence the complaint.

2.     In response, answering OP contended at the outset that the complaint is not maintainable both in the eyes of law and facts of the case since complainant is not a consumer and OP is not a Service provider and there exists no cause of action. Admitting averment in Paragraph -1 of the complaint petition  OP has denied  content of Paragraph 2 & 3 and has labeled the complainant to be a habitual defaulter of electricity Bills resulting in accumulation of arrear amounts. As regards average billing and the fact of his meter going out of order has never been brought to the notice of the OP. it is ascertained from the office records that Bills have been raised on the basis of  average of 6(six units) during the period the meter was out of order.  It is also contended that the complainant had availed the service connection purportedly for his betel shop. At no point of time OP had crossed the boundary of lawful course attracting thereby deficiency of service. Case of the complainant is just a recourse to avail wrongful gain of the benevolent legislation having no merit, liable to be quashed.
3.     We took in to consideration the challenge raised at the outset by the OP and found that it is well established that the complainant had availed the supply of electricity energy to run his betel shop, as submitted by Learned Advocate for the complainant. This itself evinces that services of OP has been hired in this instant case was for commercial purposes thereby curtailing status of the complainant as “Consumer”. Under provisions of C.P. Act, 1986 Therefore we agree to the challenge raised by OP that the complainant is not a consumer as under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We do not want to discourse any further and order as follows:

 

O R D E R

      Petition is dis allowed. During trial it has come to our notice that Bills now presented to Consumers are fading out very fast and becoming unreadable after ten to 15 days. OP is directed to look in to this aspect and ascertain that bills presented should be readable and wont fade out.  Office is directed to supply copies of the order to concerned parties obtaining acknowledgement of receipt thereof.

 

I agree

 

MEMBER.                                                                                                        MEMBER.

                                                Dictated and Corrected

                                                            by me.

 

                                                                      MEMBER.