GRIDCO Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR MANHIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned Counsel for the appellants i.e. Executive Engineer, Bolangir Electrical Division, Bolangir, Sub -divisional Officer, Electrical, Bolangir Electrical Division No. 2, Bolangir as well as Junior Engineer, Tusura Electrical Circle, Tusura in the District of Bolangir and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The respondent before us was the complainant before the District Forum, Bolangir and the order of the District Forum, Bolangir dated 27.12.1997 passed in CD Case No. 32 of 1997 is under challenge by the above noted appellants, who were the opposite parties before the District Forum.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that, the complainant an unemployed youth of village Tusura in the District of Bolangir started a fabrication Unit named and styled as 'Manhira Fabrication', by availing financial assistance from the State Bank of India. He applied for electric connection to his Unit in 1995 and after all formalities the power supply was given to his Unit on 2.1.1996. The estimate made by the complainant was 3 H.P. and the opposite parties had not mentioned the kilowatt consumption of the complainant's Unit. For the month of January, 1996, the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 2, 747.30 , but for subsequent months the bill amount was never exceeded than Rs. 570 in any month, rather it was Rs. 287.30 in February, 1996, Rs. 463.50 in March, 1996 and the highest billing was Rs. 569.30 paise in the month of February, 1997. Since the bill raised for January, 1996 was Rs. 2,747.30 , it is alleged that, this has been done intentionally without any basis and no regular record is maintained by the opposite parties/appellants. It is also stated that, the Vigilance Officer of the opposite parties on the application of the complainant visited the Unit and submitted a report, on the basis of which the opposite party No. 1, without any reason issued a bill for Rs. 11,968.20 paise. The complainant in the circumstances filed a complaint and made a prayer for rectification of the bill for the month of January, 1996, so also the bill which was submitted to the complainant on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Officer and also claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000.

(3.) THE opposite parties stated before the District Forum that, the bill for the month of January, 1996 has been correctly assessed and raised and served, and they had not sent the Vigilance Officer to submit a report, but on his own accord the Vigilance Officer had visited the Unit and submitted the report, and in the said report, the consumption of the complainant was found to be 4.1 kilowatt and as such, the bill for the month of January, 1996 was submitted correctly.