Orissa

Kendujhar

07/2015

Narottam Lohar - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Executive Engineer, NESCO - Opp.Party(s)

Sri A. Pradhan & Associates

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 07 OF 2015

                      Narottam Lohar, aged about 64 years,

                      S/o: Late Mangulu Lohar

                      of Village: Tangarbantala,

                      Post: Ukhunda, P.S: Baria,

                      Dist: Keonjhar- 758001………………………………………..…Complainant

                                          Vrs.

                1. Executive Engineer, NESCO, Joda

                    At/Po: Joda, Dist: Keonjhar

                2. S.D.O. NESCO, Champua,

                    Dist: Keonjhar………………………………………………….…Op. Parties

 

PRESENT:  Shri A.K. Purohit, President

                    Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member

                    Advocate for the complainant: Sri A. Pradhan & Associates

                    Advocate for the O.Ps: Sk. Kamal Jumlat (Authorized Agent)

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Date of Hearing: 27.07.2016                                                                                       Date of Order: 30.08.2016

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member:  The brief fact of the complaint is that the complainant had purchased the scheduled land under mouza- Ukhunda on 26.6.95 vide R.S.D. No.557, dt.26.6.95 from Bhaga Mahanata and constructed a house in the year 2012 after mutation and mutated in the name of the complainant vide R.O.R of Khata No.365/7.Thereafter the complainant applied for a new electricity connection to his house and deposited the security money of Rs.5200/- vide M.R. No.7433, dt.28.2.14 with the O.Ps but the receipt shows the amount deposited in the name of one Dibakar Mahanta with whom the complainant had no relation at all and to this the complainant approached several times to O.Ps to correct and a fresh receipt of security deposit may issued in the name of the complainant rather supplying electricity bill in the name of Dibakar Mahanta though the money was deposited for new connection to the complainant’s house but old connection meter No.41D/R521 was allotted and claimed the pending arrear dues of Rs.25,225/- which was in the name of Dibakar Mahanta who was died on 17.3. 2008 and to this the O.Ps should have recovered the pending dues of Rs.25,225/- from the legal heir of the deceased Dibakar Mahanta but demanding the said arrear dues from the complainant which is unfair trade practice indulged by the O.Ps and on several times approached to O.Ps to give new connection with new meter but the O.Ps instead of supplying new connection to the complainant the O.Ps demanding and compelling to pay the electricity dues in the name of Dibakar Mahanta with whom the complainant has no relation/ connection and hence this case.

        After service of notice, the O.Ps have appeared and filed his written version stating that the case is not maintainable in the eyes of law and fact and further stated that on 28.5.15 the O.P-2 went to the spot for verification and at the time of verification, the complainant was absent on the spot/ place and his sister in-law namely Sashi Lohar was present and as per her statement Sri Narottam Lohar had purchased the scheduled land. Prior to purchase there is electric connection over the scheduled land in the name of Dibakar Mahanta  bearing consumer No.41D/R521 in domestic tariff and as per office record of O.Ps there was a sum of Rs.28,710/- as on March 2015 was an arrear pending against the scheduled land/plot as used by the complainant as enclosed the ledger copy for kind perusal and the O.Ps refused to provide new connection since arrear outstanding dues was pending against the scheduled plot as per Regulation 10 of OERC distribution code 2004 and the arrear dues as not paid by the previous owner late Dibakar Mahanta and as such the arrear dues transmitted to the new owner Sri Narottam Lohar who occupied and having lawful possession over the scheduled plot and hence prayed to dismiss the case.

         Heard, the learned counsel for the complainant in absence of the authorized person of O.Ps since remained absent for hearing of the matter on several date considering the written version and ledger filed by O.Ps. It is not disputed by the O.Ps that the security deposit of Rs.5200/- deposited by the complainant which was adjusted towards arrear dues of Dibakar Mahanta in whose name the bills are prepared and to this the complainant disputing such adjustment of  Rs.5200/- instead of giving new connection to his house.

         On perusal of ledger filed by the O.Ps reflects that the amount of Rs.5200/- was adjusted towards arrear outstanding dues of electricity charges as on February 2014 which illegal and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

         So, the question arises why the O.Ps instead of giving new connection to the complainant on payment of security money, adjusted the amount towards arrear outstanding dues of Dibakar Mahanta in whose name the bills as well as the meter No. 41D/R521 is reflected and Sri D. Mahanta was expired from 17.3.2008 as revealed from the death certificate filed by the complainant could have recovered from the legal heirs of the deceased Dibakar Mahanta and the complainant challenged the amount of bill alleged to be as arrears for previous years from 2001 to 2014 (as per ledger) the O.Ps contended that the complainant is liable to pay the arrear outstanding dues of Dibakar Mahanta whenever the present complainant was occupied the particular premises and the meter stood in the name of earlier occupant Dibakar Mahanta premises. But the R.O.R & sale deed reveals the present occupant occupied the premises on purchase from Bhaga Mahanta, W/o-Paitu Mahanta in the year 1995 and nowhere related to late Dibakar Mahanta. Hence, from the above reason it is ascertained that the O.Ps have indulged unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by not giving new connection to the present complainant/ legal occupant of the premises and the O.Ps are liable for such negligence by indulging unfair trade practice by demanding earlier default of Dibakar Mahanta is illegal and liable for costs and compensation.                  

      With these discussion and perusal of materials in record, it will be genuine to direct the O.Ps to recover the arrear outstanding of Dibakar Mahanta from his legal heirs instead of the present legally occupant of the premises by Sri Narottam Lohar. Hence,

O R D E R

       The O.Ps are directed to restore electricity connection to the premises of the legally occupant Sri Narottam Lohar as deposited security money of Rs.5200/- for supply of new connection with new meter without demanding the arrears outstanding of late Dibakar Mahanta within 30 days of receipt of this order with cost and compensation of Rs.3000/- to be paid by the O.Ps to the complainant, failing which the entire amount i.e. Rs.3000/- will carry an interest @12% per annum till realization.

                   Accordingly the case is disposed of.   

 

                                                                                                                                                                             I agree

   (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                           (Sri A.K. Purohit)

  Member                                                                                          President

D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar                                                                      D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar

                        

                                                                                                                Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                                                                          (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                                                       

                                                                                                              Member, D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.