Date of filing:- 24/04/2010

Date of Order:- 04/05/2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2010.

Satrughna Meher, S/o Krushna Chandra Meher, aged about 59(fifty nine) years, At. OPP. R.M.C. Main Road, Po/Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh

..... ..... ..... Complainant.

-V e r s u s -

1. The S.D.O., WESCO, At- Laderpali, Po. Rengali Camp Via. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.

2. Mihir Nayak, WESCO Staff, S/o Gajendra Nayak, At. Laderpali, Po. Rengalil Camp. Via. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh..

..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Himself.

For the Opposite Parties :- Sri J.P.Singh, Advocate with others Advocates.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Mrs Anjali Behera .... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Dt.04/05/2016. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member (w).

Brief notes on the Complaint :-

Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties vide Customer No. COM-32-34/1 Sec-1 and his complain is about mischievous bills issued by the Opposite Parties from March-2001 to November- 2004. Even after repeated approach the officials paid no heed to his problem on the other hand they disconnected the electricity connection in August-2004. He also alleges corrupt practices being adopted by Opposite Party No.2(two) who was responsible for meter reading for the area and allegedly asked Rs.300/-(Rupees three hundred)only for every meter reading cycle and when Complainant denied to pay this person started creating problems with the bills. They (Opposite Parties) broke the good running meter and asked for arrear payments and disconnected the line on 31^st August-2004 and Complainant had to close his cloth store and in the process lost his business. In 2009 Complainant deposited Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only + Rs.150/-(Rupees one hundred fifty)only as reconnection charges vide MR No- 067556118 Dt.07/07/2009 and Opposite Parties reconnected the line after 15(fifteen) days. But this time the load is enhanced to 2 kw where as I had 0.5 kw load and billed accordingly with the enhancements made. When Complainant brought all these again to the notice of the SDO but no action taken to solve his issue rather on Dt. 23/10/2009 with armed forces and vigilance squad to Complainant's house to raid. The vigilance report also shows a load of 0.5kw and meter to be of good condition. Complainant was paying the current bills except the arrears but taking any action to address the issue the Opposite Parties demanded the arrears and disconnected the electricity line on 30^th March 2010. Once again later on Dt.05/02/2010 about given concession in the arrears amount, but Complainant believes that no due will occur if due calculation and correction is made to the bill hence this Complaint.

Complainant claims Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only for all the problem faced due to Opposite Parties action/non action as due compensation.

Complainant filed the following documents to substantiate their cause.

1. Inspection Report Dt.23/10/2009.

2. A sheet about details of billing from March- 2001 to March- 2010.

3. Letter of Complainant to SDO, Dt. 28/05/2009.

4. Copy of RTI application by the Complainant from Opposite Parties Dt.23/06/2009.

5. Disconnection notice Dt.05/02/2010.

6. Copy of Electricity bill for September-October 2004.

7. Copy of Electricity bill for May-June 2004.

8. Copy of Electricity bill for March-April 2004.

9. Bill January-February 2004

10. Copy of bills for July-August 2003, September-October 2003,November-December 2003, May-June 2003, March-April 2003, Jan-February 2003, November-December 2002, September-October 2002, July-August 2002, July-August-2001, May-June 2001, March- April 2001, September-2009, August-2009, October-2009, November-2009, December-2009, January-2010, March-2010, February-2010.

     

Upon admission for adjudication Opposite Parties got noticed duly served upon them for appearances and filing of show cause. Opposite Party No.1(one) appears and filed their version on Dt.29/07/2000 denying all the allegations made against them.

Opposite Party No.1(one) files the following and relies on those documents to substantiate then cause.

1. Deposition of an witness Ram Chandra Meher details for Opposite Party No.1(one) in the shape of affidavit.

2. Letter of EE to SDO, Elect. Attabira Dt.08/04/2009.

3. Letter of EE to SDO, Attabira Dt.08/07/2009.

4. Disconnection Notice copy of Consumer No. 412211010-0224 Dt.05/02/2010.

    

Further in course of time many other documents petitioner were filed as follows.

1. Amendment petition by complainant Dt.19/07/2011.

2. Objection on behalf of Opposite Party No.1(one) Dt.16/09/2011.

3. Amendment petition for correction of Compensation amount Dt.04/08/2014.

4. Petition of Complainant dated 19 August- 2014.

5. Copy of bill statement filed by Complainant Dt.22/09/2014.

    

After an amendment to the Complaint petition the Opposite Party No.2(two) got noticed and appeared and filed their version on Dt.01/07/2013 and filed the following documents to substantiate their cause.

1. Copy of office order Dt.21/01/1999.

2. Copy of office order Dt.22/05/2014.

    

Written argument field by the Complainant about his issue Dt.03/02/2015 and files the following documents further Dt.05/04/2015 in support of his case.

1. Copy of receipt electric bill February- 2015.

2. Bill payment receipt Dt.12/01/2015.

    

Memo of Arguments filed by the Opposite Parties on Dt.22/02/2015 and includes there decisions for perusal of the Forum which further affirms Opposite Parties claims.

1. 2014 (2) CPR 215 (NC)

2. 2014 (2) CPR 682(NC)

3. 2014 (4) CPR 423 (NC)

    

Hearing complete on Dt.22/12/2015, where in the parties submitted their contention in great details referring to the documents filed by them.

Hearing the submission of counsels of the parties, careful perusal of the petition, various documents filed, litigations referred following points are considered as important to arrive on the decision following them.

1. complainant being a consumer of the Opposite Parties is not disputed.

2. The vigilance report filed Dt.23/10/2009 confirms the load factor to be of 0.05kw where as connected load is written as 2 kw.

3. The electricity connection is issue is marked as commercial connection and on this ground the Opposite Party counsel argued about non maintainability of the case. On maintainability hearing nothing could be proved about that this Complainant has taken the correction to band act business for profit so Opposite Parties contention and objection rejected and Complainant exempted on the provisions vide Section -2(d) ( Explanation part) reading as follows.

“For the purpose of this clause “Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bright and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

4. A list provided by the Complainant includes bill months meter reading, units, amount and other details in table, shape which is objected, Forum also sees that this has no clue about the maker so can not be accepted as a report for referred.

5. A letter to SDO about disconnection of electricity of connection No. (Com 32A-31/1 Sec-1) Dt. 28/05/2009 is there but the Complaint petition speaks about disconnection been done on Dt.31/08/2004 for outstanding not paid.

6. The bill for the month of September-October 2004 shows only arrears amounting to a sum of Rs.8,786/-(Rupees eight thousand seven hundred eighty six)only.

7. The bill for the month of May-June 2004 shows 0.5 kw load and amount to be a sum of Rs.7,586/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred eighty six)only.

8. The bill for the month of March-April 2004 also shows load factor to be 01.5kw and amount to be paid Rs.6,703/-(Rupees six thousand seven hundred three)only.

9. Bill for the month Jan-February 2004 not legible.

10. Bill for the month of March-April 2001 speaks of connection to be domestic one where as in bill May-June 2001. It has been marked as commercial. No documents about changing of condition/category of the connection is available with the case record.

11. A series of bills are then prior to 2004 which speaks about arrear getting accumulated.

12. Bill for the month August-2009 shows energy usage to be 109 units, for the month of September- 2009 only 9(nine) units and for the month of October- 2009. It is only 5(five) units. Bills for November- 2009 for 7(seven) units, December- 2009 for 4(four) units and January- 2010 to be only 1(one) unit which is surprising enough for a commercial connection as alleged by the Opposite Parties and if this bills are an actual basis earlier bills how accommodated such huge amount as arrears is also sustainable.

13. Version of the Opposite Parties para 8(eight) speaks about another connection in the name of Bidyalata Meher vide No. 412211010225 in the same premises and Complainant after disconnection was using this domestic connection to run their business after disconnection of his line on Dt.31/08/2004 and for this act got fined. This is theft of electricity and Forum lacks jurisdiction on this point. On verification of records a letter to SDO, Attabira Dt.08/04/2009 from, ESO, Attabira is found corresponding to the illegal on of domestic connection for commercial purpose. Another piece of document about changing of states of connection of Bidyulata Meher from commercial to domestic is available, and payment for reconnection of old commercial connection in the name of Complainant is revealed vide this later dated 08/07/2009.

Further letter Dt.05/02/2010 speaks about connection of arrears amounts from 5/2013 to 6/2004 and 7/2009 to 11/2009 from which part payment made by the Complainant to get the electricity line recommended for which he also paid the recommendation changes applicable to the Opposite Parties.

14. Initially the Opposite Parties did objected the Complaint on the grounds of limitation, not in the scope of Consumer Protection Act-1986 being a commercial connection and billing dispute which to be taken up as per the grievance redressal system available first and prayed dismissal of the case.

     

So far as the limitation cause forum opined that till the problem/issue is not advised it continuous and scope of limitation extends with time and allowed the case.

The commercial cause retention is addressed and already answered in para – 3(three) above.

The third objection of the Opposite Party about non usage of grievance mechanism

available as per electricity Act Forum found that even though there exists internal grievance procedure available under electricity laws, the same act empowers the consumer forum to entertain issue of raised before them.

For which me want to discusses as per provisions of the Electricity Act - 2003.

Section 173 reads as-

“Nothing contained in this Act on any rule on Regulation made there under or any Instrument having effect by virtue of this Act, rule or regulation shall have effect in so for as it is inconsistent with any other provisions of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, on the Atomic Energy Act-1962 on the Railways Act-1989.

Section-175 reads as provisions of this Act to be in additions to and not in derogation of other laws. The provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for this time by in force.

The above contention is also available in the shape of Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Under the above discussion and circumstance initial objection of the Opposite Parties

rejected by the Forum.

(15) So far to the issue of billing dispute from verification of the bills filed with the case

record most of the bills were done either an load factor, or actual, however some of them are average bills and provisional bills. Further point to be remembered here that from the last bills filed were mostly billed on actual basis.

(16) Another Submission of the Opposite Parties was that the Complainant is guilty of electricity theft so this comes to be out of purview of this Forum further they also allege that Complainant after disconnection of his own connection was found to be using connection from the wife's account namely from electricity connection in the name of one Bidyulata Meher.

On verification of the various documents filed with the case record following thing found about this contention.

(A) The connection of the Complainant vide was disconnected for non payment of arrears.

(B) That Complainant was stealing charging was not established through any documents, even the vigilance squad visit record filed do not speak about any kind of theft. But documents like letter from ESO to SDO Electrical, Attabira speaks about extension of electricity connection of Bidyulata Meher to the premises of Complainant is established this piece of document neither charges this Bdyulata Meher of committing any theft but charged the connection type to commercial. Which was reversed after sometime once again to domestic. In the circumstances the consumer Bidyulata Meher is accused of electricity theft but no case is before this Forum. In between this Bidyulata Meher and Electricity distribution or present Opposite Parties. Accordingly to Electricity laws person using the energy to other usages others then for the purpose taken is attributed to theft. Which again is not applicable to this case rather it fits to the connection of the Bdyulata Meher vide connection No.412211010225.

So contentions of the Opposite Parties in this regard is rejected.

Under the facts and circumstances described and discussed above Forum orders the following:-

- O R D E R -

Opposite Parties are believed to be rendered due attention to the case of the Complainant. So are exonerated from any charges of deficiency of services.

Complaint stands dismissed being devoid of merit.

No costs.

Stands disposed accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

( Smt. Anjali Behera)

M e m b e r (w).

I agree,

(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)

M e m b e r.