CHAIRMAN, GRID CORPN. OF ORISSA vs NRUSINGH CHARAN PATRA

THIS is an appeal by the GRIDCO (presently CESCO) (sic) against the order of the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, directing to revise the bills in respect of the Consumer No. 1026 of the complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

COMPLAINANT''s case is, he initially applied to instal a 23 HP Motor for his ice candy factory in his village Thalkudi in the district of Jajpur for which he availed loan from Orissa State Financial Corporation. This was permitted on 23.3.1982 and he was allotted Consumer No. 1026. On 12.7.1982 he wrote to the Executive Engineer that because of his financial difficulty he would like to instal 13 HP Motor instead of 23 HP and, therefore, the contract load should be reduced to that and the bills may be raised accordingly. He issued reminder on 22.4.1984, but it is his case that long after that on 12.4.1993 he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 300/- for the purpose of inspection to reduce the load. It is further his case that some time in the year 1991 the power connection was discontinued. Even though he wrote to restore the power supply, this was not done till filing of the case. He claims that in absence of power he sustained loss as calculated in the schedule given in the complaint petition. Case of the appellants was that they were not deficient in service inasmuch as the complainant was liable to pay Rs. 44,419.20 p. up to October, 1992 towards arrear electricity bill and since he did not pay, the line was disconnected and not only that the agreement was also terminated on 7.1.1994. With regard to reduction of the load in paragraph 6 of the reply they took the stand that the consumer should apply to the supplier with money receipt towards processing fee and furnish the details of the load approved by the supplier previously and details of the revised load. This the complainant did not do.

We have heard Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned Counsel for CESCO (sic) and Mr. R.K. Nayak, learned Counsel for the complainant. Perused the impugned order and materials on record. Admittedly the complainant has been assigned the consumer number. He was permitted to instal a 23 HP power motor. But by his letter dated 12.7.1982, he changed his mind and applied that he wanted to instal a 13 HP motor, since he was in difficulty. He has proved that he sent the application under Certificate of Posting, a copy of which is on record. We accept his case that he had sent this letter and not only that it is presumed that same was delivered to the Executive Engineer at his office. But they did not take any action. Moreover, they have also not come forward with a case that they did not receive any such letter requesting them to reduce the contract load. The complainant has also proved the reminder which he sent on 22.4.1984. But strangely on 12.4.1993 for the first time, as is disclosed from the record, the Executive Engineer wrote to the S.D.O. Electrical, Jajpur to investigate the matter personally and intimate the detailed history of the consumer and if the fact was true the consumer may be asked to deposit Rs. 300/- for the purpose of investigation and calculation of the reduced load. The complainant deposited this amount on 16.4.1993. It is the admitted case of the parties that power supply was discontinued after October, 1990 (sic). This is proved from the Consumer Ledger relating to the complainant, the zerox copy of which is on record. There is an entry in the ledger, "Meter burnt, no supply to Industry since 4.11.1990". Thereafter the Ledger indicates the last entry showing the outstanding dues of Rs. 33,603.10p. and that perhaps is the demand, that remained on record against the complainant. The Ledger indicates that the complainant was made liable to pay Rs. 29,037.70 p. from August to October, 1990. It is not that the complainant has not paid any dues whatsoever. He claims to have paid Rs. 12,078/- for the period from 4/1988 to 10/1990 and that too by way of instalments. We accept his case, in the absence of any contrary material from the side of the Department, that he has not so paid. If we deduct this amount of Rs. 12,078/- the complainant remains liable to pay Rs. 11,525/- upto October, 1990 and no energy charges (except rental, etc.) after 4.11.1990 since neither the supply continued nor it has been restored as per his request till 1992. The entire Ledger indicates that the amount has been calculated upto October, 1990 on the basis of the contract loss of 23 HP. This is obviously a wrong act on the part of the Department since we have held in the earlier paragraph that the complainant wrote to reduce the contract load in the year 1982, to be precise in the month of July, 1982. The Department slept over the matter till 1993. Thus there was gross lapse on the part of the Department. Even though the complainant deposited the amount for calculating reduced contract load that had not been done.

WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. But we finally settle the dispute by directing the CESCO authorities that because of this lapse on their part for sitting over the matter for about ten years, they should not charge the amount of Rs. 11,525/- from the complainant as the complainant is not liable to pay anything towards the demand which we award in the form of compensation for the deficiency in service as pointed out by us. WE modify the order of the District Forum that the complainant would not be entitled to any further compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the District Forum. But we award that the complainant would be entitled to cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). WE further direct the CESCO to restore power supply to the premises of the complainant, if he so wants on making a fresh formal application with all requisite deposits, etc., and by observing other formalities. He should not be asked to pay any dues whatsoever for such previous period. In the result, the order of the District Forum is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed with above modification, with cost. Appeal disposed of.