MANI MALLIKA ENTERPRISES vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ORISSA STATE ELEC. BOARD.

THE complaint put forward by the complainants is about the negligence in supplying of electricity to the transferred premises of the enterprise of the complainants. It is a registered partnership firm which was established for the purpose of steel fabrication works. In February, 1982 Electricity Board supplied electricity to the workshop under consumer No. 8255. On 16.1.1987, the complainants applied for transfer of electrical power connection from the rented workshop N.H. No. 5 Charampa to the new premises, Mouza Ereli Plot No. 1885 about 1.5 K.M. from the opposite party premises.

THE Executive Engineer accorded his permission for shifting and installation of 11.5 H.P. industrial load in new workshop. He deposited Rs. 162/- out of total Rs. 450/- after adjusting the previous security deposit and was exempted from depositing Rs. 7134/- as the area, where the new workshop was built falls within the R.E.C. scheme. On 31.3.1987 the complainant filed agreement on stamp paper deposited the amount for transfer of electric supply. He had to transport the cement poles to the new site from Baghurai electric office premises at the instructions of the S.D.O. Next month he had to shift the machinery for testing and internal wiring. So from this month onwards there was no supply of electricity to the workshop. On 1.7.1987 the complainants received a notice of disconnection. The letter regarding his loss due to non-supply of electricity to the Executive Engineer who joined recently brought adverse result. The Executive Engineer ordered for new agreement cancelling the old one and accordingly ordered for recasting of estimate to be submitted. Then one after another two reaised estimates followed. The estimate for power supply was revised and was fixed to Rs. 9,310/- with security deposit of Rs. 450/-, there it was revised again and was enhanced to Rs. 10,910/- with security deposit of Rs. 550/-. On 12.1.1989 complainants deposited the estimated cost finding no other way, afterwards, he applied to reduce the contract demand from 11.5 H.P. to 8.5 H.P. which is not attended to yet. In December, 1989, his power supply was disconnected though he had paid 50% of illegal demand with protest and yet to receive the revised bill.

The opposite parties in their written statement mention that the complainants were the regular defaulter in paying electric bills. So supply was disconnected on 20.7.87 due to non-payment of arrear charges of Rs. 5,035.70. As the agreement was in force, he was charged for six months minimum charge basis up to January, 1988. Then he applied for shifting of premises to Mouza Ereli which was granted earlier with the exemption of payment. But later he was informed that being a single consumer, he is not entitled to avail the benefit of exemption of payment of cost. So, he was issued the revised estimated cost. The complainant deposited the amount and executed the agreement on 16.1.1989 for a contract demand of 9 K.W. and supply began on 13.2.19 89 on receipt of the test report from the consumer as required under the supply regulation. Afterwards, he was required to pay 50% of arrears up to January, 1988. But he failed to deposit the rest 50% within one month as per the Clause of the agreement. So due to non-payment of bill on 30.12.1989, electricity was disconnected. As the agreement was not closed, the consumer was charged for a period of six months from the date of disconnection. The arrear up to June including instalment dues were charged.

THE opposite parties deny to take responsibility of loss occurs to him for delay in supplying power. THEy say that he himself responsible for the delay as he did not submit the estimated cost in time. Again it was pointed out that the new Executive Engineer detected that the complainants were not liable for the exemption of the shifting cost. THEy were late in submitting the test report. Opposite parties submit that according to supply regulation 1981 Clause 3(e) a consumer is charged minimum charge. So long as agreement continues even if the line is disconnected. Complainants paid 50% of the bill and promised to pay the rest within one month. When he failed to do so his power supply was disconnected. He was not been charged from February, 1988 to 13.12.1989 for power given to new premises. The alleged allegation about illegal payment of 50% charge during disconnection is not correct. He paid it willingly.

THE submission of application for reduction of the contract demand as prescribed is required, which was not done by the applicant. THE opposite parties rule out the question of revision of bills and any kind of compensation claimed by complainants. Perusing the case it is clear that the complainants are no way responsible of the Executive Engineer without proper verification accorded his permission to shift the power supply to he new workshop which does not fall under R.E.C. scheme with the exemption of shifting cost, later detected by his predecessor. He had to deposit the revised estimated cost and the enhanced cost also after entering the new agreement ordered by the Executive Engineer. As regards the arrear bill of the consumer, the authorities, it should have taken a liberal attitude towards him who had incurred loans from Orissa State Financial Corporation and United Bank of India in order to run small scale industry.

FROM the above discussions, we arc satisfied that the minimum direction that would be given is to restore back the connection within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which for each day opposite parties shall be liable to pay damages of Rs. 200/- till connection is given. As regards the demand for more money, although complainant has paid the same in part, we are inclined to hold that being put to a helpless position, officers of the Board have coerced complainants to pay the amount. Therefore, notwithstanding such payment or some writing for willingness to pay, the dispute ought to be settled by an arbitrator appointed by the Board within 2 months from the date of this order.

IN conclusion, opposite parties shall reconnect supply of electricity within 15 days of receipt of this order in case the same has not yet been reconnected and on failure to reconnect within 15 days from receipt of this order shall pay damages of Rs. 200/- per day till date of reconnection. Added to it, opposite parties shall appoint an arbitrator who shall adjudicate the disputes. In the result, complaint is allowed with the aforesaid direction. Complaint allowed. _____________