Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

First Appeal No. 893 of 2012. Case: NESCO Vs Baburam Behera. Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 893 of 2012
Party NameNESCO Vs Baburam Behera
CounselFor Appellant: S.C. Dash, Advocate and For Respondents: M/s. B.P. Dash and Associates
JudgesR.N. Biswal, J. (President) and Smarita Mohanty, Member
IssueElectricity Act, 2003 - Sections 126, 135, 140
CitationIII (2014) CPJ 15
Judgement DateMay 30, 2014
CourtOrissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

R.N. Biswal, J. (President)

  1. In this appeal, the appellants call in question the order dated 18.4.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Balasore (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in C.D. Case No. 10 of 2010 directing them to waive out the entire penal bill imposed against the respondent and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2,000 to him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. Respondent is the complainant and appellants are opposite parties in the aforesaid C.D. Case before the learned District Forum.

  2. Succinctly stated, the case of complainant is that in the month of April, 2005, he took electricity connection having Consumer No. 1-3852/S.I. to his S.I. Unit installed at his village Badadhandi under Balasore District. Since then he was paying the electricity dues regularly as per bills issued by the opposite parties, but surprisingly on 31.3.2009, he received a bill from the opposite parties showing that an amount of Rs. 28,424 was pending against him as arrear. He came to know from the opposite parties that on inspection of his Unit on 11.1.2009, it was found that he was using electricity unauthorizedly, which is a cocks and bull story. Hence, he filed the aforesaid C.D. Case to direct the opposite parties to correct the erroneous arrear bill of Rs. 28,424.

  3. Opposite parties in their joint written version contended that on 11.1.2009, the unit of the complainant was inspected by the competent designated authority and on inspection, it was found that the complainant was using electricity unauthorisedly by hooking a single phase from nearest L.T. base and by-passing the meter in question. Accordingly, an inspection report was made, but none of the inmates of the complainant put signature on it. The competent authority passed provisional assessment order on 11.2.2009 and after expiry of the statutory period, the final assessment of Rs. 30,191.60 was made vide order dated 13.3.2009. Accordingly, the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the C.D. Case.

  4. After going through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the District Forum held that if at all the complainant was availing power supply to his Unit through hooking, opposite parties ought to have lodged FIR against him, but they had not done so. If the complainant or any of his family members refused to sign on the inspection report, the inspection party could have obtained the signatures of the local...

To continue reading

Request your trial