ADARSH PRABHA PURI Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CESU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT in this First Appeal was the complainant before the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in C.D.Case No.421 of 2007 and assailing the order of the District Forum dated 11.03.2008 passed in the said C.D.Case, she has filed this appeal against the opposite party -respondents, namely, Chief Executive Officer, CESU and S.D.O. Commerce (III), BCDD.

(2.) WE have heard the appellant in person and Mr.S.C.Dash, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) THE complainant filed the aforementioned consumer complaint on the allegation that she is a consumer of electricity under account No.10 -K -343 for a contract load of 1.00 KW to her residential house. A penal bill was raised against her in letter dated 26.06.2002 for a sum of Rs.8,595/ - and she was asked to deposit additional security deposit of Rs.1,809/ -. She was also asked to replace the existing meter by another of Alstom make. The connected load was enhanced to 2.50 KW. Thereupon, the complainant made a request to the opposite parties by her letter dated 02.08.2002 protesting against the bill. However, being compelled, she made a deposit of Rs.5,030/ - as there was disconnection of electricity on 26.02.2002. She also fixed a new meter of Alstom make. There was restoration of power supply on 07.08.2002 and there was no power supply from 26.06.2002 to 07.08.2002. Again there was disconnection of power supply in September, 2002 having raised excess demand, and thereupon the complainant paid Rs.5,000/ -. The meter, which was fitted, after testing, was taken away by the CESU authorities on 31.10.2003, who replaced the same by another meter supplied by them. On such action of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint in C.D.Case No.133 of 2004 before the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, challenging the enhancement of load capacity, for refund of excess amount taken by the opposite parties and for other reliefs. The District Forum disposed of the said case by order dated 22.11.2006 with the direction that without issuing notice under rule 82 of OERC Code, 2004, the contract load of 1.00 KW could not have been enhanced to 2.50 KW. Accordingly, the opposite parties were directed to issue notice before such enhancement of load and after hearing the complainant, necessary orders were to be passed. Till then, the dues on the basis of enhanced load capacity was directed not to be collected from the complainant. After this order of the District Forum, the staff of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant on 04.06.2007, verified the installations and found the connected load to be 1.00 KW only. But, they did not refund the amount, which was collected from the complainant on the basis of load capacity of 2.50 KW. In the circumstances, the complainant filed the present complaint for refund of the said amount.