JUNIOR ENGINEER ELECTRICAL vs SALARAM PRADHAN

THIS is an appeal by the CASCO Authorities against the order of the District Forum, Puri, directing for restoration of power supply to the domestic line of the complainant and compensation of Rs. 500/- for deficiency in service.

HEARD Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned Conunsel for CASCO Authorities, and the complainant himself. Complainant''s case is, he was availing power supply till 1990 and was paying the electricity dues for one K.W. load regularly. The transformer from which the supply was given was burnt on 5.10.1990. The conductor was stollen by miscreants sometime during the month of December, 1992. Therefore, neither the complainant nor any of his co-villagers were enjoying power supply since December, 1992. Exception was taken by the complainants to the bill for Rs. 11,867.45 for the months of July and August, 1999 served on the complainant. He raised a protest which the Department did not listen. Hence he filed the case.

Mr. Nayak has strenuously urged referring to the Ledger that the bills have been correctly raised for payment by the complainant which he has not paid. Mr. Nayak gave out that no doubt the transformer was burnt on 5.10.1990 and there was theft of conductor in December, 1992 and in fact the regular supply line to the domestic premises of the complainant could not be restored because as per the departmental rules, once a transformer was burnt the comsumers availing power supply from the transformer had to deposit 50 per cant of the arrear dues which was not done by the villagers for which no new transformer could be provided. But Mr. Nayak on the basis of certain documents on record strenuously urged that the villagers being adamant were unauthorisedly drawing power from the 63 KVA line to the L.I. points and therefore they have been charged and so also the complainant. Since the complainant had been availing power supply, he is liable to pay the amount demanded against him.

WE do not follow such an argument by the department. A person, or for that matter the complainant, certainly is entitled to restoration of power supply in regular manner from the nearest pole to his premises. If this was not done in regular course, it is someting follacious to say that he is bound to pay the energy charges for his availing power supply by some improvised method. WE can appreciate the case of the department that if somebody is unauthorisedly drawing power his line has to be disconnected and penalty should be imposed or steps may be taken under the Electricity Act or Rules thereunder for punishment for any such unauthorised drawal of power. In any case the department has not proceedded against the complainant. WE can appreciate if the department considered it to be a case of unauthorised drawal of power, certainly they were free to take any such steps to disconnect the unauthorised drawal of power. But raising the bill against the original consumer number for unauthorised drawal of power from another source is something not either permissible under law nor acceptable to us. That apart, it is not known on what basis the consumption of energy has been calculated and bill raised. That apart, as we find from the impugned order the District Forum has accepted the written version of the opposite party No. 3 - Executive Engineer, Eiectrical, vide paragraph-2 of the impugned judgment, where the District Fourm accepted the version of the Executive Engineer that the electric bill issued to the complainant for payment of the amount of Rs. 11,896.25 is invalid and the consumer is not liable to pay the bill as he has not availed power from 10/1990 for burnt of the transformor and from 12/1992 for theft of the conductor. Not only that while deciding issue No.1 the District Forum also accepted the report of the lineman dated 4.7. 2001 where he has stated that he visited the village Badankula in December, 2001 and found the existing transformer of Benupade had been burnt since 5.10.1990 and had not been replaced. The District Forum also relied on the visit of opposite party No. 2 to the village of the complainant on 25.12.2001 who found that since the burning of the transformer of Benupada the consumers were getting supply from the L.I. point of 63 KVA Sub-station which was actually installed to cater to 8 L.I. points. The transformer was found to be over loaded and due to unauthorised load there was a further problem. He advised to go for a new transformer and power supply could be possible if additional transformer was installed at Badankula. Considering these materials the District Forum rightly held that the complainant did not avail power supply for the above period and, therefore, the raising of such bill was arbitrary. Therefore, it directed the authorities to revise the bill.

WE do not find there is infirmity in the impugned order. The same is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.