Orissa

Jajapur

CC/48/2017

Panchanan Panda. - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.E,NESCO,Jajpur Road. - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.Panda

31 Dec 2019

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                             Dated the 31st day of  December,2019.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 48  of 2017.

Panchanan Panda , S/O.Late  Nabin Panda ,    

Vill- Beleswar , Po-Kamagarh,   

P.S/ Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                    

                                                  (Versus)

1. S.E.NESCO, Jajpur Road, Dist.Jajpur ,Dhabalgiri  

 

2. Executive Engineer,NESCO,Jajpur Town

 

3. S.D.O,(E) NESCO, Jajpur Town .

 

4. J.E,NESCO, Jajpur Town,At/P.O/Dt.Jajpur .

  

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                 

                                                                                                                           

For the Complainant:                                   Sri P.K.Panda  ,Advocates .

For the Opp.Parties :                                Sri P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order:    31 . 12. 2019.

MISS SMITA  RAY , L A DY M E M B E R  .

 

The petitioner has  filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service  against the O.Ps.

            The petitioner is an  aged  bonafied consumer under the O.Ps  vide consumer  No.JTR   3878  but the O.Ps  had not installed the meter and his status is domestic and his average consumption  was fixed at 1  K.W   and he was paying the rent  as per demand of the collection  staff of the o.ps . That all on a sudden  the ops served a demand notice dt. 07.02.11   till Dec-2010  for arrear showing  as Rs 1,32,000.10 /-.Thereafter the petitioner  rushed  to  the office of  O.ps  and complained  about the erroneous bill but the O.Ps  played   hide and seek games  for 3 to 4 years for correction of the bill which was illegally charged against  the petitioner and subsequently  the collecting  staff of O.Ps threatened the petitioner to  disconnect  the power supply .Thereafter on  much request however in 2015  the electric  meter was installed and at present the bill as per meter   is about 250 per month .  But the O.Ps now    showing Rs   80,893/- as arrear . Though  the petitioner requested  the O.P to   correct   the bill as per meter reading but the O.Ps  are paying no heed  to the complaint   .The petitioner is an poor  old man and have no knowledge  in which way  the O.Ps   have  cheated him .   That on 20.7.17 the O.P.no.4 demanded to pay Rs.20,000/-  otherwise the electric line will be  disconnected.

Accordingly  finding no other alternative the petitioner knocked the door of this fora with the prayer to direct the O.Ps   to  refund  Rs  61,000/-  which they have received illegally and also pay Rs one lakh  causing metal agony  and Rs 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            After notices the O.Ps  have appeared through the learned advocate and filed   their written version taking the stand that :

The present dispute is not maintainable in eye of law .

That it is  admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of NESCO, jajpur Town sub division being consumer No.JTR-3878. It is also of admitted fact that the complainant is an old consumer of O.P on dt.28.12.15 MRT division  entered into the premises of complainant. The complainant has sought for a remedy before this consumer dispute Forum only to harass this O.P .Law is well established that they are competent authority to redress  the grievance  of the complainant . The present complain petition of the complainant is barred by law of limitation, as prescribed under C.P. Act.

            The apperceive the right to file any supply monetary or additional written statement at later stage of any substantial matter comes within its knowledge in connection to this particular case matter.

            For the reason stated above the complain case filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on cost.

            Owing to the above contradictory statement of both the parties on the date of hearing we heard the argument form the learned advocate  for both the sides . After perusal of the record   and ledger copy in details  filed from both the sides   we observed that :

1. Admittedly it is undisputed fact that the petitioner  is a domestic consumer under the O.P  bearing consumer no.JTR 3878                          .
2.  It is also the  fact that as per complaint petition there is an amount of Rs.80,893/-  has been shown as an arrear by the O.ps  against the petitioner . In the present dispute the petitioner  alleged that on 20.7.17 the O.P.no.1 demanded the petitioner to pay Rs20,000/-  other wise  the power supply  will be  disconnected  from the premises of the petitioner but the O.ps  categorically denied the same .After perusal of the entire ledger copy filed from both the sides it is observed that maximum period of billing was done by the O.Ps   on load factor basis without installing   a  tested meter in the premises of the petitioner  and there is  revision  of bill  in the month of January -16   and  an amount of Rs 2,77,274.34p/  reduced from the arrear bill of the petitioner . It was done on the basing upon the present meter installed in the year of - 2015 in the premises of the petitioner but we do not understand under what circumstance  the O.ps have taken   into consideration  the revision from April-2004  though  the billing was also done on load factor basis prior to 2004  though the ledger  copy is  available  with the O.P  from  the year - 2000  but  under what circumstances the revision was done on two  fraction basis  i.e from April-2004 to May -2008  and  from June -2008 to Aug-2015  which was clear violation of regulation 86 of OERC code-2004 .Thereafter we verified the regulation -93(8) of OERC-2004 where in it  stated that provisional billing – the amount thus billed  shall be adjusted against the bill raised on the basis on actual meter reading  during subsequent billing cycle such provisional billing  shall not  continue more than one meter reading cycle  at the stretch if the meter remain in accessible  even for  the next cycle the consumer will be served with a 24 hour notice U/S 163 (3) of Act to open his premises for reading of the meter at the  fixed time and date  ,   in the meter is not accessible at the time fixed in the notice the  supply may be disconnected after serving 24 hour notice on the above regulation . More over supply of electric bill without meter reading on average /  load factor basis is a clear violation of Regulation -51 and 86 OERC 2004 . Hence in our considered view the O.ps  have  committed patient deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice for which the petitioner suffered a lot .  As such to meet the ends of justice we allow  the dispute.

Hence this Order

            The dispute is allowed against the O.Ps . The arrear amount shown by the O.Ps  is not sustainable  as per law . Hence without drawing any  adverse inference the O.Ps  are directed to revise entire load factor bill from Oct – 2000  to till 2015   as per Regulation – 97 of  OERC-2004

From the average meter reading  the meter which was installed  in the year-2015  within one month after receipt of  this  order.  The petitioner   is also directed to pay the current bill regularly. No cost .

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st  day of  December,2019. under my hand and seal of the Forum.