State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sub-Divisional Officer-Iii (Cesco) ... vs Md. Abul Basar, Aged About 42 Years Son Of ... on 22 June, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK
STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK
C.D.
APPEAL NO.830 OF 2004
From an order dated 10.09.2004 passed
by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puri in C.D. Case No.254 of
2003
1. Sub-Divisional
Officer-III (CESCO)
M.R.T. Puri Electrical
Division,
At/P.O./Dist. Puri
2. Asst.
Manager (Com) No.III,
Puri Electrical Division,
At/P.O./Dist. Puri
Appellants
-Versus-
Md. Abul Basar, aged about 42
years
Son of late Md. Abdul
Gufar,
C/O V.C.J.N.S.U. Qr.
No.B-3,
P.O. Shree Vihar,
Puri-3
P.S. Sea Beach, Dist. Puri
Respondent
For
the Appellants
:
Mr.
S.C.
Dash.
For the Respondent
: Mr. M. Dhal &
Assoc.
P
R E S E N T :
THE
HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT,
SHRI
SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER
AND SMT. BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER O R D E R DATE: - 22ND JUNE, 2009.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
The S.D.O.-III (CESCO) and the Assistant Manager (Commerce) No.III, Puri Electrical Division are the appellants before us. By means of this appeal, they have assailed the order of the District Forum, Puri dated 10.09.2004 passed in C.D.Case No.254 of 2003. By the impugned order, the District Forum, while allowing the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent Abul Bashar has directed the opposite party-appellants not to disconnect the power supply to the premises of the complainant so long as the complainant goes on paying the current monthly charges of the electricity consumption by him. The opposite parties have further been directed not to realize the penal charges of Rs.18341.40 from the complainant until the provisions of section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the corresponding provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 as to the verification of the meter are complied with. By the said order, the District Forum has also directed the opposite parties to adjust the payment of Rs.2,200/-, which was paid by the complainant on 15.09.2003, and Rs.1,000/-, if paid by the complainant in pursuance of the interim order dated 29.09.2003 of the Forum, towards the arrears of the complainant.
2. The complainant, namely, Md. Abul Bashar, a Class-IV employee of the Jagannath Sanskrit University, Puri, was allotted with a quarter of the said University for his residential accommodation. The electric charges towards consumption of power were being paid by the complainant as per the meter reading. The bill dated 25.08.2003 was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant showing an arrear of Rs.7,000/-. The complainant was allowed instalments for payment of the arrear on his approach to the opposite parties. The opposite parties also allowed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.2,200/- on 15.09.2003. In spite of payment of the dues, the opposite parties issued bills containing penal charges. The complaint was filed before the District Forum, Puri, for a direction to the opposite parties not to disconnect the power supply and for compensation. A prayer was also made to restore the power supply, if during the pendency of the dispute the same was disconnected. The complainant also disputed the bill for the month of September, 2003, issued vide bill dated 23.09.2003.
3. The opposite parties appeared and filed their written version. In their written version, they stated that the complainant is a domestic consumer (Consumer No.00251683) having load of 1.00 KW and bills were issued on the basis of meter reading. The complainant, who is a habitual defaulter in payment of electricity bill, had an outstanding of Rs.7,965.55 up to September, 2003. Opposite party no.2 and the Supervisor, M.R.T. made an inspection in the premises of the complainant on 21.09.2003 and on verification it was found that the complainant had enhanced the load unauthorisedly from 1.00 KW to 2.62 KW by-passing the meter on the permitted load of 1.00 KW. The quantity of by-pass load was 1.62 KW. The complainant was charged with a penal bill of Rs.18,341.40 for the preceding three months of detection of by-pass vide letter no. Camp(2) dated 25.09.2003 of A.M.C.-III, district Puri. The complainant refused to accept the penal bill. It is stated in the written version that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case relating to theft of electricity and as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as per the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.D.Case No.134 of 2002 (Binod Sahoo v- CESCO). It was prayed that the complainant may be directed to make complaint before the designated authority for redressal of his grievance.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. Mr. S.C.Dash, learned counsel for the appellants, drew our attention to paragraph-4 of the impugned judgment and submitted that on physical verification at the spot in the domestic premises of the complainant, it was found that the service wire just before the meter entry point had been cut for the purpose of consuming power by-passing the meter. The squad had inspected the spot on 21.09.2003 and verification report was prepared on the same day. Mr. Dash submitted that the District Forum has gone wrong in recording in para-4 of the judgment that the report does not disclose that verification of the meter was done by an Electrical Inspector. He distinguished and differentiated the case of tampering of meter and by-passing the meter and submitted that the District Forum has gone wrong in coming to the conclusion that even by-passing of the meter and consuming more power requires examination of the meter by an Electrical Inspector. In the present case, it was consumption of more power by by-passing the meter by tampering with the wire just before the meter and drawing power for consumption. Therefore, the question of examination of the meter by an Electrical Inspector is not at all required as because it was visible to the open eye of the technical persons in the squad and they have recorded in the report the same thing.
5. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the District Forum has totally gone wrong in finding that since the meter was not tested by an Electrical Inspector, the opposite parties had no case and it is only the complainant who had a genuine case. Such a finding on the face of the facts involved in the case is not at all tenable. As such, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the District Forum and allow the appeal of the opposite party-appellants. However, in the circumstances, we do not pass any order as to cost.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.
.......
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President ........
(Subash Mahtab) Member .......
(Basanti Devi) Member Date:-22.06.2009