DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
…………………………
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara,President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated,Bolangir the 30th day of March 2016.
C.C.No.52 of 2015.
Prasanta Kumar Barik, son of Muralidhar Barik,
At/P.O-Ankariapada, P.S.Bolangir Sadar,Dist-Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
The Executive Engineer,WESCO, Sonepur Division,
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Sonepur.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Advocate for the complainant- Sri A.K.Panigrahi. & Associates.
Advocate for the Opp.Party - Sri C.K.Mishra & D.Bagarty.
Date of filing of the case – 10.07.2015
Date of order of the case- 30.03.2016.
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In brief, the complainant stated, he is a consumer in retaining the consumer No.915001050307 of WESCO at village-Ankariapadar and the connection was contracted to the load of 8 K.W as the line relating a huller being managed in earning for livelihood.
2. The complainant averred in the month of April 2015 an electric bill amounting to Rs 17,758/- has been served without any basis. Subsequently it also said an amount of Rs 7,000/- has been paid on 16.04.2015 vide receipt No.5289188 and in May 2015 has paid Rs 5,000/- on dt.23.05.2015. But on dt.10.06.2015 the bill issued has been surprisingly raised to the tune of Rs 99,595/-.
3. The complainant also said the excess bill amounting of Rs 88,128/- as demand is arbitrary and without any basis, so also in spite of perfect functional electric meter the assessment has been made as “D” that relates to theft of energy and malpractice meter detection, the charge has been made malafidely.
4. Further averred, it is mandatory provision of law, the authorized person in entering the mill premises and alleged defect not prepare any inventory report, with signature of the complainant, Report copy not served to the petitioner No show cause has been sought on Provisional Assessment order, No hearing has been ensured nor final hearing matter has taken place, so the addition amount charged is illegal, without jurisdiction and arbitrary. Prayed in the interest of justice the excess bill be corrected in a revision at the service providers end.
5. In pursuant to notice, the O.P appeared and file the version contending, the complaint has been filed in challenging the final Assessment Order dt.16.05.2016 which has been raised u/s.126(b)(ii)(iv) of the Electricity Act,2003,which is also a case of excess abstraction beyond the permissible contract demand as per the power supply agreement. The averments raised in this case are baseless false, concocted and not in proper appreciation of the settled principle of law.
6. Also averred the electricity supply to the unit was a contract demand of 8 KW. But the consumer paid over drawal penalty for the excess load as per the tariff regulation and liable to be assessed under section 126 of the E. Act 2003. So also the challenge to penal assessment u/s.126 of the Electricity Act being in connection with an offence does not fall within the ambit of “deficiency of service” and the statute i.e Electricity Act provides scope for filing an appeal u/s.127 of the El4ectricity Act before the designated authority so, proceeding before consumer for a may be an encroachment to the jurisdiction of a competent authority empowered under law, so such complain is not maintainable before the consumer fora.
7. It is also said that the rice huller installed for commercial purpose shall not come within purview of consideration, so far as the case is concerned because the complainant or his father is not coming within the definition of consumer under C.P.Act.
8. The O.P also averred, the inspection conducted by J.M (Com.),MRT, Bolangir and found the petitioner has extended his supply to LI point, which is unauthorized in terms of regulation 106 of the OERC Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code, 2004. The report has been signed by the nephew in presence named Sri Narayan Pradhan, basing on same, an provisional assessment order vide letter No.506 dt.12.02.2015 was issued and final assessment order has passed on dt.16.05.2015,so using the supply for other purpose other than the permissible one are unauthorized and subject to assessment under section 126 of the Act-2003.Relied on inventory report dt.29.01.2015,so in view the above facts and circumstances and having regard to the settled, principle of law, the present case is devoid of merit and same is liable to be dismissed. Relied on Inspection report dt.29.01.2015,Provisional Assessment Order dt.12.02.2015, Final Assessment Order dt.16.05.2015 and latter written note of Argument.
9. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the materials on record.
10. In consequence of perusal of record, the facts comes to fore is that petitioner advanced the issue relating the case is revision of bill and the O.P contended the issue relates Provisional Assessment thereby final order or being the sole one.
11. The complaint of the petitioner submission is that he is an old consumer and paying bills regularly but O.P made the connection unauthorized and abstraction in dishonest manner in this connection raised maintainability through out the proceeding on the back drop some decision as made reliance.
12. Perusal records reveals, the petitioner has issued with a bill to the tune of Rs 99,595/- on the month of May 2015, on average units of 323 without any basis. We also see, the rice huller has contract load of 8 K.W, so excess consumption beyond the contract is neither serve with any notice rather advanced as dishonest abstract. The pleadings of O.P reveals that extraneous connection has been extended to LI point which purposely used in irrigation. The Forum during the course of proceeding has sought the documentary proof of installation of LI point, connection and thereby irregularly committed but no document placed in line with the contention as made.
13. Rather, the provisional assessment made basing on the inspection report dt.29.01.2015, which reveals to be a manufactured one as because the date of inspection is 29th Jan 2015 and seal & signature sign on 21st April 2015, besides the person present during inspection has not made any signature in the inspection report so nature of utilizing is false and malafide and advanced by the petitioner and the order passed on 22.02.2015 is exparte and ingredients under section 126(1)(2) and (3) is abysmally absent which is not under the ambit of consumer protection as argued. But this court found the petitioner counsels advancement that case relates revision of bill is no more tenable rather we consider the same is a case of provisional assessment u/s.126 of the Electricity Act 2003.
14. In view of such assessment, and apex court’s decision the case is hereby dismissed being barred of jurisdiction, thereby not maintainable under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
