Adv. For the Complainant: - Self
Adv. For OPS :- Sri Chinmaya Kumar Mishra
Date of filing of the Case :- 24.03.2023
Date of Order :- 07.03.2024
JUDGMENT
Fact of the case in nut shell:-
- The complainant is a consumer of TPWODL vide consumer No.911111170192 in the month of 2020 the then WESCO organized a bill revision camp under OTS scheme for all the defaulter which was
-
largely Advertize publicly to get benefit of the scheme under that scheme the WESCO assured discount will be given to the consumer on settlement of outstanding on the Bill. The complainant along with several consumer met SDO.1 WESCO Bolangir for settlement. The complainants Bill also revised to Rs.35,000/- instead of Rs.59,000/- as outstanding on discount, and settle for onetime payment .The complainant believing the version of SDO-1 deposit Rs.35,000/- before the SDO-1 WESCO and after the payment in the month of November the arrear became ‘O’ reflected on the Bill since then the complainant paid regularly with nil arrear till 20.01.2023 on 20.01.2023 one demand notice of Rs.59,000/- was received by the complainant . The complainant contact with the officer of TPWODL regarding the payment but the Ops paid deaf ear rather threaten to disconnect the power if the am ear is not paid and on the month of February 2023 an arrear of 59,000/- reflected on the Bill. Hence this case.
2.To substantiate his case the complainant relies on the following documents.
(1) Electricity bill for the month of Oct 2020, Nov 2020, Jan 2021, Feb2023.
(2) Demand notice issued by the Ops date 04.03.2023.
(3) Statement of Billing from April 18 to Feb 2022.
3. Having gone through the complaint it’s accompanies documents and on hearing the complaint prima facie it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and issue notice to the Ops were served and in response they appeared through their councel and filed written Statement.
4.In rival contention the Ops denies there was no OTP scheme as claimed by the complainant during 2020 the alleged arrear of Rs.59,000/- is recoverable from the consumer as arrear against consumer electricity charge since that was illegally withdrawn from the consumer’s account by exercising fraud by a dishonest employee of our organization which was detected through audit and has been claimed against the employee. The complaint is not maintainable before this
-3-
Hon’ble commission on the question of fact and law and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
5. Heard the complainant as well as the Ops perused the materials on record with submission and vehement denial of the learned advocate from both the side with arguments.
6. Before adjudicate the matter it is better to form certain issues for consideration as follow.
1. whether the complaint is maintainable ?
2. whether any deficiency discrepancies or deceptive trade practice played by
the OPs .
3. whether the complainant deserves any relief.
Issue No.1- when there is a wrong constitute a recurrent cause of action they have every cause grievance and right to approached he consumer commission.
Interpreted broadly positively and purposefully to give meaning to additional extended Jurisdiction particularly when Sec. 100 C.P. Act to provide remedy under the act in additional to other remedies provided under other act unless there is a clear bar. As such the case is maintainable to adjudicate before this commission.
Issue no.2- The complainant while came through the advertisement by WESCO for OTS being a defaulter attracted to get some discount present himself accompany with his sole friend who is the witness filed the affidavit found on the record before the then SDO-1 WESCO to settle the matter after listening to the complainant the SDO-1 adjusted the amount to Rs.35,000/- on a good faith and on believe and advice to take the receipt after 1st half, after payment of the arrear dues the outstanding comes to zero and the complainant from December 20 paid the regular bill as per the power consumed as per the ok in the status report . This also corroborated with the statement of billing of the complainant found on the
-4-
record. The Ops admitted that one of his dishonest employee exercising fraud withdraw the charge from the account of the complainant. Here a question arise why should a consumer here in this case the complainant is liable after payment of the outstanding in OTS and enjoy the privilege continuing 2 years from the date of payment of the dues why should not the licence be fell under “ vicarious liability” here the licence company is liable for the wrong done by his employee. The amount should be recover from that dishonest employee this can be found from the statement of billing of the complainant where it is reflected that on October 20 the outstanding shows Rs.59,000/- and in Nov 20 it was Rs.1402.44 so it reveals that after payment of OTS the meter status was reflected zero and on the month of December it is ok as such after correction of the bill the company again cannot levy the outstanding charges it is unreasonable a deceptive trade practice amounts to deficiency in service.
It has been seen that the officers empowered by TPWODL unnecessary dig the tomb and create litigation whether for generate of revenue or pocketing the same they better knows. But here the case in hand comes under ‘ vicarious Liability’ the company is liable for the wrong done of his employee not the consumer to burden with financial load again . more over the complainant adduce the affidavit evidence of one Susanta Chopdar who said he was with the complainant at the time of payment issue No.2 answered accordingly.
In the analysis of issue No.1 and 2 it is found that the complainant in good faith paid the OPS and also after payment enjoy the status of the meter zero and ok why the complainant bother about any fraud done by any of the employee of the company or by the staff together as such the complainant is exempted from contractual liability and deserves the remedies provided under C.P. Act 2019.
Sequel to the above discussion this commission pleased to consider in favour of the complainant with following directions.
-5-
ORDER
This commission pleased to waive the arrear outstanding of Rs.59,000/- and the Ops are directed not to disconnect the power on the same ground.
Further the Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses within one month from the date of order failing which the Ops should pay the entire amount @ 12% interest per year from the date of filing of the case till realization.
No award as to cost.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TODAY I.E DATED 07th DAY OF March’2024
