State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer, Kendrapara ... vs Fakir Ch. Nayak on 30 July, 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.275 OF 1996 From an order dated 15.03.1996 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kendrapara in C.D. Case No.05 of 1996 1. Executive Engineer, Kendrapara Electrical Division, Kendrapara. 2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Electrical Sub-Division, Aul, At/P.O- Aul, Dist- Kendrapara. 3. Junior Engineer, Electrical, Rajkanika Electrical Section, At/P.O- Rajkanika, Dist- Kendrapara. Appellants. -Versus- Fakir Ch. Nayak, Village- Badajure, P.O- Rajkanika, Dist- Kendrapara. Respondent. For the Appellants : M/s. B.K. Nayak & Assoc. For the Respondent : M/s. T.K. Deo & Assoc. P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SMT. BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER. O R D E R
DATE:- 30TH JULY, 2007.
The opposite parties in C.D. Case No.05 of 1996 before the District Forum, Kendrapara have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 15.03.1996 of the District Forum as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The complainant who is the respondent, had filed the C.D. case challenging excess billing in respect to supply of electricity to his coal briquette connected with 10 HP motor.
3. The facts of the case in brief is that electricity to the small scale unit for coal briquette through 10 HP motors of the complainant was supplied on 15.12.1986 by the opposite parties. Due to non-supply of electric meter to the said unit, complainant was charged 420 units in average per month till completion of the year 1988. But there was sudden enhancement of average units from 420 to 810 from January, 1989 with demand of meter rent of rupees 50/- per month. Again in the year 1998, the average unit charge has been increased to 864 from 810 units. Complainant challenges this increase of average units of 420 to 864 during the aforesaid period not only arbitrary but also illegally. Therefore, he filed the C.D. case for correction of calculation of average units from January, 1989 to 12.12.1995 and to charge as per meter reading from 13.12.1995 as new meter was fixed to the unit on 13.12.1995. Besides this, complainant challenges the calculation of excess billing in respect to the month of November and December, 1994 and January, 1995 as no power to the unit on account of burning of transformer through which power was being supplied, as well as in respect to the calculation of the charges upto December, 1995, as because there was power cut of 2 to 4 hours and due to low voltage during night hours, the 10 HP motor was not running. Accordingly, the complainant has challenged the correctness of the electric bill dated 03.01.1996 demanding a sum of rupees 47,752.50 as outstanding arrear dues. Hence, the C.D. case was filed for correction of calculation of average units for the aforesaid period and to charge as per meter reading from 13.12.1995 and for compensation.
4. The increase of rate of units of 420 to 864 during the aforesaid period being an admitted fact of the opposite parties, the opposite parties have stated in their written version that power supply to the said unit was given on 12.12.1986 but the meter installed at that time was found defective right from the time of installation as a result of which the bills were on average basis viz. 420 units per month from December, 1986 to March, 1988. But, the subsequent bills were prepared in accordance with the circular No.4757 dated 28.03.1988 and charge @ 810 unit per month upto March, 1990 was charged from the complainant. Further in accordance to paragraph 4 of the ready Reckoner, Volume 2 A of April 1990 of O.S.E.B., the fraction of K.W. was rounded as 1 KW resulting in calculation of connected load as 8 KW instead of 7.5 KW for which the complainant was charged for 864 units per month from 1990 to 12.12.1995. From 12.12.1995, the new meter was fixed. In this end of the view, the opposite parties claim not to have committed deficiency in service to the complainant. Their case in respect to wrong calculation of charge due to burning of the transformer is that as the burnt transformer was replaced on 15.01.1995 after it was burnt on 27.12.1994 calculation of unit is not possible as it did not cover a full calendar month. Therefore, there is no difficulty for charging as per the meter reading with effect from 13.12.1995. Opposite parties denied wrong calculation due to power-cut and low voltage as alleged by the complainant. Accordingly, opposite parties have clamed for dismissal of the C.D. case.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants only as none appeared for the respondent. Perused the pleadings of the parties and documents filed by them.
6. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the District Forum should not have entertained the complaint and directed to revise the energy bills since cause of action as per the complaint petition arose on 01.01.1989 or prior to this date such claim being barred by limitation. Moreover, the orders of the District Forum to revise, correct and calculate the energy bills for the period from 01.01.1989 to 12.12.1995 on the basis of consumption at the rate of 420 units per month is arbitrary and against the provisions of law relating to Electricity as enhancement of rate of units from 420 to 864 from time to time has been made in view of Circular No.4757 dated 18.03.1988 (Annexure-A) of Chief Engineer Commerce, Orissa State Electricity Board in short OSEB on the basis of 15% load factor on connected load and in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Ready Reckoner, Volume 2A of April 1990 of O.S.E.B.
7. In respect to point of limitation, it is clear in the paragraph 5 of the complaint petition that in view of arbitrary increase of units from 810 units to 864 units vide bills dated 8/95 to 10/95, complainant needed interference of the Consumer Fora. Of course, reference has been made in respect to arbitrary increase of unit from 420 to 810 units prior to 1995 in the same paragraph. Complainant has disclosed that when Electric authorities failed to correct the objectionable bills as per their promise, complainant has been compelled to file the C.D. case. Thus, the C.D. case having been filed on 06.01.1996, it is within the period of limitation.
8. In respect to aforesaid other contention of learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to state that undisputedly average of 420 units was charged against the complainant till 1988 from the time electricity was given to complainants 10 HP motor. Complainant does not dispute the billing at such unit for the said period. But complainant challenges the increase of the average unit of 420 to 810 for the period from 1989 to December, 1994 and average unit of 810 to 864 from January, 1995 to 12.12.1995. In this respect, the District Forum held that the aforesaid circular in view of which average unit of 420 to 810 has been enhanced by the opposite parties for the period from January, 1989 to December, 1994 is not justified because said circular is not applicable to the unit of the complainant. It has assigned reason that such type of enhancement is applicable as per Clause 4 of the Circular to a case where meter has not been provided within six months of giving power supply or defective meter is not replaced within three months when the meter became defective. But, in the present case, the meter supplied to complainants unit became defective from the date of installation and defective meter, admittedly, has been replaced on 13.12.1995. The District Forum further held that as the demand of 810 unit per month as aforesaid ill illegal, enhancement of 864 unit from 810 in view of Ready Reckoner Volume 2A of April 1990 of OSEB is wrong and unjustified. Accordingly, vide its order dated 15.03.1996, the District Forum decided that complainant is liable to pay @420 units per month commencing from January, 1989 to December, 1994 and from January, 1995 till 12.12.1995 besides the undisputed period i.e. from 15.12.1986 bill and of 1988. The appellants have not proved through any satisfactory materials as to how the aforesaid findings of the District Forum is illegal and arbitrary. In this end of the view, we do not find any justification to set-aside this findings of the District Forum.
9. Moreover, undisputedly, the meter in the unit was replaced on 13.12.1995. Therefore, demand of meter rent @50% per month beginning from the year 1989 by the appellant is arbitrary and illegal. In this end of the view, the District Forum has committed no mistake prohibiting vide its aforesaid order, the appellants collecting from the complainant meter rent at the above rate from the time of electric connection to the unit till 12.12.1995.
10. The District Forum has disallowed complaint any relief in respect to his protest for excess billing due to burning of the transformer and non-functioning of the briquette unit during peak hours of the days and low voltage in absence of evidence in that respect.
11. Finally, the District Forum has decided vide said orders dated 15.03.1996 that complainant, as per his own admission to average charge of 420 unit per month, shall pay electric charges @420 units per month for the entire period from 15.12.1986 to 13.12.1995 and opposite parties are to prepare within a couple of months the electric bill for this period at such rate as a result of which complainant shall make payment towards such bills within such period and on such instalment if any as would be determined by opposite party No.1. We find this is a very reasonable and appropriate order passed by the District Forum.
12. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without cost. The impugned orders dated 15.03.1996 of the District Forum is hereby confirmed.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.