Orissa

Jajapur

CC/25/2017

Sri Brajendra Nath Sharma. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The S.D.O,Electrical (NESCO),JTED Kalimegha Jajpur Section-II - Opp.Party(s)

Srinebas Barik

02 Aug 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 2^nd  day of August,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.25 of 2017.

Sri Brajendra Nath Sharma   S/O Late Bipra Ch. Nath Sharma

Vill/P.O. Guhali  P.S.Binjharpur

 Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       

                           (Versus)

1.The S.D.O, Electrical NESCO,JTED, Kalimegha ,Jajpur Section-11,

   P.S/Dist. Jajpur.

2.The Executive Engineer, Electrical NESCO,JTED ,P.O/Dist. Jajpur .

3.Post Master ,Jajpur Head post office, At/P.O/Dist.Jajpur.                               ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

                                                                                                                            

For the Complainant:                           Sri Srinibas Barik, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                            Self.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   02.08.2017.

MISS SMITA RAY, LADY MEMBER .

Deficiency in service is the grievance of the petitioner .

            The fact of the dispute in brief as stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition is that the petitioner is a daily laborer and also a BPL card holder as well as  electrical consumer under the O.Ps with contract demand of 0.5 K.W  bearing consumer No.612221141065 . That there was no billing since Sept-2004 because the electrical contractor has not submitted his final feasibility report in respect of his scheme,  hence the petitioner was in contact with the O.Ps regarding billing for their area. The O.Ps assured the petitioner that the bill will be  served very soon .

            Subsequently on 15.03.17 the petitioner received  a electrical bill amounting to Rs.13,741/- towards the arrear of electrical dues and the field staff of the O.P threatened him that the arrear bill dues shall have to be paid prior to  March-2017 , failing which  the power supply of his premises will be disconnected .Thereafter the petitioner approached the O.Ps to look out this matter but the O.P did not pay any heed to it towards the grievance of the petitioner . As such moving from  office to office the petitioner has suffered from monetary loss  and mental agony.

Accordingly  finding no other alternative way the petitioner knocked the door of this Fora to pass necessary order and direct the O.Ps to prepare a normal bill as per provision as prescribed under RGJ scheme and compensate him by paying Rs.25,000/-  for his monetary loss, mental agony  and illegal harassment.

            After appearance  the O.P  filed their written version .In their written version the O.P have taken the  following stands:

That the consumer A/C given by the petitioner is wrong. The actual consumer Account no. is RGJTR 13923 (612112101011) . The name of the consumer is Bipracharan  Nathsharma. The petitioner Sri Brajendra Nathsharma is the son of Sri Biprachran Nathsharma.

            It is true that prior to 2014 there was no power supply to the consumer premises. For the first time during Sept-2014 the power supply was given to the consumer through meter bearing No.543052 against the noted consumer no. with a contract demand of 0.5 K.W.

            It is false to say that there was no billing made from September-14 in that area.

            During Sept-14 to Jan-17 no reading was taken and during Feb-17 3499 units was billed resulting Rs.11412/ billing amount. After receipt of the notice from the Hon’ble Forum ,the meter bearing No.543052 was tested through accucheck on 04.05.2017 and it was found out that the meter is defective. Though billing was made from September-14 to Jan-17 on the basis of provisional and final meter reading was taken during Feb-17 resulting 3499 units (average comes to 3499 /30 =116.63 units) ,we have suspected the accuracy of the meter and the meter was tested through accucheck bearing No.AC 308769 on 04.05.2017  and found that the meter is defective (10.33% slow ) . A new OK tested meter bearing No.NUA 04440 of make AVON (10-60 A) with initial reading ZERO was immediately installed, replacing the old defective meter( meter bearing No.543052).

            Due to meter resulting defective, the reading has not been taken up from Sept-14 to Jan-17 and at once 3499 units were billed during Feb-2017.

In this context, the bill from Sept-14 to the date of installation of new meter may be revised as per regulation 97 of OERC Regulations-2004.

            The O.P was not deficient service  in any manner to provide proper service to the petitioner . So there is no question  to give compensation in this case. After electricification to the consumer premises, regular monthly billing has been provided . It is false to say that there is no billing since 2014. The petitioner has confessed that since 2014, he has electric connection to his house.

            As per regulation 93(11) of OERC Regulation,2004 ,for any reason the consumer does not receive the bill for the billing cycle within two weeks of the end of the billing cycle, it would be the obligation of the consumer to approach the engineer and collect a duplicate bill. Whether the petitioner had applied earlier for duplicate bill?

Again the energy meter installed in the consumer premises became defective resulting non recording of readings from Sept-2014 to Jan-2017 and over recording of readings during Feb-2017. The defectiveness of the energy meter comes beyond the control of the department and a new tested OK meter was immediately installed when comes to the notice of the department.

On the date of hearing we heard the arguments from the learned advocate  for the petitioner. Perused the pleading and documents available on record  filed from both the parties in details.

1.Admittedly it is undisputed  fact that the petitioner is electrical consumer under the O.Ps bearing consumer No.RGJ13923 ( 612112101011) from Sept-2014 with a contract demand of 0.5K.W .

2.It is also admitted fact that during Sept-14 to Jan-17 no reading was taken  and during Feb-17 the reading was taken  as3499 units and bill was served to the petitioner .

3.That the O.P.no.1 also admitted in his  W/V that after receipt of the notice of this Fora the meter bearing no.543052 was tested through accucheck on 4.05.17 and it was found that the meter was defective, so new tested meter bearing No.NUA04440 with initial reading zero was installed replacing the old defective meter  and due to meter defective the reading was not taken up from Sept-14 to Jan-17 and at once 3499 units were billed during Feb-2017 .

            In the circumstance the grievance of the petitioner is that the O.Ps did not served monthly electricity bill every month and whimsically supplied a bill of 30 months and subsequently on 15.03.2017 served a bill amounting toRs.13,741/- .O.P also admitted in their W/V no meter reading has been taken from the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner from Sept-14 and the 1^st reading was taken in the month of Feb-17  as a result an arrear amount of Rs.11,412/ arises and thereafter the meter was replaced in place of defective of old meter. In this situation we verified the  Regulation 100(2) and 86 of OERC(  Distribution Condition of Supply ) code 2004 where it is held that :

“ Not outstanding anything contained herein above no sum due from any consumer under the section shall be recoverable after a period of two years from the date when such sum, became 1^st due unless such sum has been soon continuously  recoverable as a arrears of charges for electricity supplied and licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity for non payment such sum which has became no recoverable “.

And

“ “Energy charges – as decided in the licensee tariff shall be payable by the consumer on the basis of actual consumption of the energy “.

            Hence  as per the above regulation it is our considered view that the O.Ps can not demand the arrear electricity  dues after the period of two years and the O.P can not prepare  the energy bill on load factor/ provisional basis .Accordingly the bill submitted by the O.Ps after expiry of two and half years is  not sustainable in the eye of  law and this attitude of this O.P established gross deficiency in service .

Hence this Order

            The O.Ps are directed to prepare the energy bill of the petitioner only before the two years from the month the 1^st bill served to the petitioner as per Regulation 100(2) and 97 of OERC Code-

2004 within three months after receipt of this order. The O.Ps also directed to collect the arrear electricity dues in 12 equal  monthly installment along with current electricity dues . The petitioner also dire4cted to pay the electricity  dues regularly after receipt of the revised electricity bill failing which the O.Ps can taken steps as per law .  

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 2nd day of July,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.