DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 31 of 2022.
Date of hearing : 14.11.2023.
Date of order : 19.12.2023.
Dated the 19th day of December 2023.
Sri Rajkishore Rout, S/o:-Kailash Ch. Rout,
Prop. M/s. Baba Biswakarma Fly Ash Bricks,
At/Po:-Bodakpatna, Via:- Randiahat,
PS:-Agarapada,Dist:- Bhadrak.
………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
- The Junior Engineer, Bonth Electrical,
Section Bonth, Bhadrak.
P.S:- Bhadrak (R), Dist:-Bhadrak.
- The S.D.O. Electrical Rural E.S.O, Bonth
Bonth, Bhadrak.
- The Executive Engineer (BSED)
Bhadrak Electrical Division (South)
At/Po:-Bhadrak, Dist:- Bhadrak.
.…………Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
For the Complainant : Sri Narayana Ch. Mohanty, Advocate,
For the Opp. Parties : Sri D.N. Naik, Dy. Manager (Legal).
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Fact of the case is that, the complainant has a Brick Fly Ash Factory named & styled as M/s Baba Biswakarma Fly Ash Bricks situated at Bodakpatna & complainant after fulfilling all formalities with Govt. of Odisha got license to setup the said factory to earn his livelihood. In order to take electric supply to his factory, the complainant applied before O.P.No.3 & his application was granted by the O.P.No.3 after due checking of the place of the factory by the O.P.No.1 & O.P.No.2 after proper inquiry. In order to supply the energy there was an agreement executed between the complainant O.P.No.3 NESCO Utility BSED Bhadrak now it is TPNODL on dtd.08.03.2017, where both the parties mutually agreed on the condition cited in the agreement. To take supply of current to the factory, complainant expended around Ten lakhs towards putting of 3 pole, accessories and other miscellaneous expenses. In the agreement there was one clause that the consumer may utilize the power upto 27.775 KVA/25 K.W. out of the aforesaid contract demand in his residential colony for use by himself of his employees, O.P.No.3 without giving any information & behind the knowledge of the complainant has installed another transformer in the line of the complainant for a Tower Company, which not only violate the agreement but also creates problem for supplying of energy as a result of which his production hampered. The complainant has met several times to the O.P.No.3 & put forth his grievance. The complainant is paying his electric bill regularly except two year during pandemic period the factory was totally stopped without worker& guideline of Govt. of Odisha strictly closed the factory. But the complainant has been billed as earlier even when the factory was closed due to the corona pandemic. These OPs billed the complainant without taking the reading of meter even if the meter is functional and correct. The complainant also alleges of excess billing than actual consumption. The complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to correct the bill as per meter reading & exempted the excess bill charged by the O.Ps & stop the KBS billing & bill be charged as per KYC & O.Ps be directed not to demand the outstanding billing against the complainant for wrong billing about 60 thousand.
O.Ps submit that, the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps since dtd.10.03.2017. The consumer is irregular in payment of arrear dues since the date of power supply. The complainant is a Medium Industry consumer & 3ph power supply was given to him which is coming under the power & capacity of the O.P.No.3 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Bhadrak South Electrical Division. The meter reading, billing & revenue collection is being carried out as per the TPNODL guidelines. One agreement has been executed between the consumer & O.P.3 on 08.03.2017 which was valid for a period of 5 years. The validity of the agreement has already been expired. The estimated cost under 6% supervision scheme is Rs.6,23,271/- & estimated sanction of HT service connection is Rs.1,30,500/-. The consumer may utilize the power upto 27.775 KVA/25 K.W. out of the aforesaid contract demand in his residential colony for use by himself or his employees. The aforesaid supply shall be from a three-phase 50Hz alternating current system at normal pressure of 11/0.4 K volts. The quantum of supply shall be measured by a suitable metering equipment of 11/0.4 K volt. There is no less supply of energy to the bricks unit of the complainant. The transformer used by the complainant is a personal transformer. If another transformer is installed by the licensee/O.Ps for a Tower Company it will no way create any problem for the complainant. The power supply is given to the consumer from the 11 K.V. line to the complainant & to the other consumer which is the sole property of TPNODL (erstwhile NESCO Utility). The billing is done as per actual meter reading & in case of non-realization of arrear dues the disconnection notice is issued to the consumer. As per the provisions of both OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 & OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply)Code, 2019 the consumer is liable to pay the minimum fixed charges even if there is no power supply to the consumer. The same has also been mentioned in the agreement. Therefore, no wrong billing has been made. The bills are raised as per KWH meter reading upto 31.03.2022 according to the then prevailing tariff rate & w.e.f. 01.04.2022 as per KVAH meter reading in compliance to OERC Tariff Notification. At no point of time, the complainant approached the O.Ps for his grievances. Due to non-payment of electricity dues in time, disconnection notice has been issued & only to save himself from disconnection of power supply & to avoid the payment of electricity dues. The complainant is a habitual defaulter in payment of electricity dues since the date of power supply. The billing has been done as per the actual meter reading.
Having heard the rival contentions and their respective pleading, this commission frames the following issues for fair adjudication of the consumer dispute:-
ISSUES.
- Whether OPs in violation of the terms of the agreement has installed another transformer in the line of the complainant for a Tower Company?
- Whether thereby the quantum of Power Supply to the complainant’s unit was affected and consequentially the production in his unit hampered?
- Whether these OPs have charged the complainant during the Covid Period when his unit was shut down?
- Whether the complainant was billed without taking the meter reading?
- Whether the complainant has been billed in excess to his actual consumption?
Issue No.1 & 2 are jointly taken into discussion. The agreement referred by these parties was executed on 08/03/2017 with a validity period of 5 years. By the time the present complaint is filed the tenure of the agreement is already over. But as the service provider and consumer relationship is existing between the parties and the complainant is availing energy supply from these OPs on the selfsame terms and conditions, even if the same is not renewed, it has a binding effect on these parties. But nowhere in the agreement, it has been stated that these O.Ps cannot install another transformer or give connection to other consumers. However, they are bound by the agreement to supply power up to 27.775 KVA/25 K.W. out of the aforesaid contract demand in his residential colony for use by complainant or his employees. As per the dump voltage report obtained from the grid, it shows reading of above 64.19 i.e. means the voltage is above 87%. Low voltage is not an issue in cases of 3 phase connection and the case energy connection is a 3 phase connection. It is clear that the supply to the unit of the complainant was never less than what is agreed in the agreement. So, it is hard to believe that the quantum of supply was less than 25 KV to the unit of the complainant. There is no material evidence available in the record to hold that the production of unit hampered due to low voltage. So, Issue No.1 & 2 is answered against the complainant.
During the Covid Pandemic period, all units are under lock down or shut down as the orders of the Government. During that period the complainant had no other option than to shut down his unit in obedience to the order of the government. But in appears from the bills raised by these OPs, it is evident that they have even charged during the shut-down period. The contention of these OPs that there is always a fixed charge but it is evident from the bills that the amount billed during the shut-down period is much more than the fixed charges. So, Issue No.3 is answered in favour of the complainant.
The contentions of the complainant that the meter reader of these OPs are not coming to his unit seems to be true as the inordinate and highly fluctuating meter readings shown as actual meter reading in the bill, compels this commission to believe in the contention of the complainant. So, Issue No.4 is answered in favour of the complainant.
As the complainant has been charged in excess of fixed charges during the unit shut down period and in the Covid lock down & shut down period, those bills need to be verified and bills from March 2020 when the Covid Lock/Shut down commenced to April 2022 be revised. So, Issue No.5 is also answered in favour of the complainant.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is partly allowed. These OPs are directed to revise the energy bills of the complainant from March 2020 to April 2022 as per average meter reading of September, October & November of 2023. They are further directed to charge not more than fixed charges along with meter rent during the connection line repair during covid shut down periods while making the revision of the energy bills. No cost to any party. All interim order stands disposed of.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 19th day of December 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
