GYANARANJAN RATH @ JNANRANJAN RATH Vs. CESCO & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved against the orders dated 26.5.2004 in the C.D. Case No.148 of 2003 by the District Forum, Kendrapara holding the C.D. case deserves no merit, the complainant has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the complainant as per the C.D. case in brief is that he is a consumer of electricity bearing No. M.MI -43 -04687957 K.E.D. No. II Marsaghai in respect to a Rice huller which is the only rice huller in the locality. He was paying electric bill regularly. But suddenly he received electric bill for the month of August, 2003 where inflated electric charge has been made viz. Rs. 2171 was demanded. Still then he paid the said bill amount before the due date under protest as during that month his huller machine had worked only for fifteen days. As the transformer was burnt, electric supply to his said huller was disconnected. In spite of his several requests, said inflated bill was neither regularized nor electric supply was made to the huller by the Executive Engineer, CESCO (opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1). Therefore, alleging gross deficiency in service to him complainant filed the C.D. case to direct opposite parties/respondents to regularize aforesaid electric bill for the month of August, 2003, to give electric supply to his said huller and to give him Rs. 15,000 as compensation for his mental agony and financial loss.

(3.) ON the other hand the case of the opposite parties as per their written version in brief is that the complainant was a regular defaulter. However, he had cleared the arrear dues upto July, 2003 Rs. 13,573 on 12.8.2003 and had availed rebate. He has also paid bill for the month of August, 2003 Rs. 2227.70 on 25.9.2003 and had availed rebate. At no point of time he had protested the bills as inflated. He has never complained before the Supply Engineer. As a matter of fact the 6.3 K.V. transformer from which electric energy was being supplied to the huller of the complainant was burnt. So there was no electric supply to the huller of the complainant. A new transformer could not be installed there as the consumers of the village have failed to clear at least 50% of the arrear outstanding dues. In these end of the view, opposite parties have not neglected complainant in respect to supply of power to his huller. However, they are trying their level best to collect arrear dues from the defaulting consumers with a view to replace the transformer. Moreover, complainant and his father are motivating consumers not to pay the arrear dues and the father of the complainant, who remains joint with the complainant, is a defaulter of huge amount of arrear dues being a domestic consumer. It is also not possible to give power supply to the huller of the complainant from another transformer as it situates at a long distance and also its existing consumers would suffer from inadequate power supply. Therefore, opposite parties had claimed for dismissal of the C.D. case which according to them has been filed on false and fabricated ground.