Adv. For the Complainant    : -    Self

Adv. For OPS                          :-   Sri Chinmaya Kumar Mishra

Date  of filing of the Case    :- 24.08.2023

Date of Order                         :- 15.04.2024

JUDGMENT

Fact of the case in nutshell-

1. The complainant is a residential doctor of Bolangir Bhima Bhoi Medical College Bolangir. The complainant allotted Qtr no 2r-103 in Bhima Bhoi Medical college , Bolangir on 1^st august 2023, after inspection of the Quarter the complainant found that there was no power supply to the said Qtr. After inquiry from the Revenue section came to know that a sum of Rs.2250/- was outstanding due towards electric Bill and adviced to paid the dues and apply for a new connection as a new occupant on 5^th august the complainant met with the lead Engineer – connection management namely Mr. Vaibhab  Madhukar Pawase  at palaceline office and also the Executive Engineer Electricity Bolangir and as per their direction apply for single phase new connection and the complainant applied same by paying Rs.4641/- through “ Mo vidut app” But after payment of the same the lead engineer told that there is no single phase in B.B.M.C quarter area and the complainant has to apply for 3 phase new connection and assure to return the single phase payment . The complainant paid Rs.16835/-, though the meter was active but to supply of power they need wiring Clarence the TPWODL hesitate to supply the power. The complainant was in touch with the officers of TPWODL for supply of electric line but till 18^th august there was no supply of line to the Qtr of the complainant. when the complainant querie about the matter with lead engineer the engineer shows harsh and rough behavior which could not be expect from him as a public officer. Due to the misguidance , mishandled of the lead engineer as well as the E. E. The complainant stayed with his pregnant wife who was in the last trimester of pregnancy, and for this the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.23,766/- and suffered  10 to 12 days without electricity due to stress and mental agony the complainant could not concentrate himself in his duty or to serve her partner in her crucial stage, hence this case.
2. To substantiate his case the complainant relied on the following documents.

1. Occupancy officer order dated 01.08.2023.            
2.  
2. Money receipt no. 33740102082303030002.
3. Demand notice dt.03.08.2023.
4. Application to the E.E. for power supply.
5. Payment online Aug 9 Rs.4,641/-
6. Payment online Aug 9 Rs.16,835/-
7. Request for refund of Rs.4641/- paid for single phase connection.
8. The Bill of previous occupant dated. 10/07/2023 Dr. Mihir Kumar Sahu.
9. The guide line of OERC supply code 2019 6 nos.

3.  Having gone through the complainant it’s accompanied documents and on hearing the complaint prima facie it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and noticed to the Ops were served and in response they appeared through their councel and filed their version.
4. In the rival contention to counter the allegation the OPS denied the allegation made by the complainant the Ops comply the E.C. Act 2003 and the OERC ( Condition and supply) code 2019 where form II prescribed by OERC is same for applying new connection as well as for change of consumer’s name. The Ops submitted that the complainant has mistakenly act as per the advice of the customer care executives and has Just fabricated the same to owned the sympathy of the commission. The amount paid for single phase connection was refunded to the complainant on 16/08/2023 and the refund was initiated on 22/08/2023 after the process is completed, the Ops admitted that there was a slight deferment in the installation of the meter because of wiring clearance , as such the case is devoid of any merit should be dismissed.

         Before adjudication of the case in hand here emerge two issues for consideration.

1. Whether the case is devoid of any merit likely to be dismissed?
2. Whether the act done by TPWODL is amounts to deficiency in service by which the complainant deserves any remedies?  

    Issue No.1 service as defined by C.P. Act 2019 in Sec 2 sub-section 12 states “service means service of any description which is made available to the potential users and include but not limited to the provisions of facility in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport processing supply of electrical or other energy , telcom boarding or lading or both , housing construction entertainment , amusement or the purveying of news or other information but does not include the  rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.

          Here the case in hand neither it is personal contract nor free of charge, it also covers any description, as such the case is not lacking any merit and adjudicate as per allegation and the evidence found on the record on merit. Issue no.1 answered accordingly.

         Regarding issue no.2 it is note worthy to mention here that imagine what is the situation that a pregnant lady at the later state of pregnancy without electric current which is the essential ingredient a basic necessity stayed in that Qtr for 10 to 12 days with suffering is out of imagination. How crude the officers of TPWODL that after payment of the dues in online the power supply should be restore within 48 hours as per OERC guide line but delayed for 13 days, to be more clarified a bill of TPWODL dated 10/08/2023 adduced as evidence by the complainant which belongs to the previous occupant Dr. Mihir Kumar Sahu of QTR no 2R/103  Govt Medical college and hospital campus vide Bill no 911011308231603047 dated 10/08/2023 bill month 07/2023 where it is reflected that the consumer status (Active) and meter reading(Actual meter) bill period 2/7/2023 an amount of Rs.236,19/- as such it is crystal clear that the meter was active and without any verification the lead engineer levied the amount of new meter upon the complainant unnecessarily.  More over in OERC Rule in transfer of service connection rule 40 ( C) states in case no objection certificate from the registered consumer/ authorized person, previous occupant is not submitted an application form for change of name shall be entertained only if security deposit as stipulated in this cod is paid a fresh.               

      However the original security deposit shall be refunded to the claimant as and when a claim is preferred by the concerned persh with documentary evidence.

(d)  change of consumer name shall be effected within 15 day after acceptance  of the application form.

    Without complying the guide line and aggrieved with the complainant that he takes advice of the customer care executive, whom the lead engineer commented they know   nothing but law, rules and guidelines are same it could not be differ , This type of beheviour to the public leads to litigation. Here in this case due to the misguide and misunderstanding the complainant suffer financially mentally and physically moreover due to the non entertain of the complainant application for change of name /transfer of service the complainant have to pay basic fees for Rs.160 per months for 18 months at the time of no dues certificate given without any receipt provided to the complainant.  which amounts to deficiency in service and deceptive trade practice  and the complainant march towards compensation.

       In the above fact and circumstances we consider our view in favour of the complainant with the following directions.

ORDER

1.  The OPS are directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses @ 9% interest per annum within one month from the date of order till realization failing which the OPS should paid the entire amount @ 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the case till realization.

Further , the OPS are directed to adjust the outstanding dues paid by the complainant which left by the previous occupant. In his monthly consumption bill if the payment of the bill is up-to-date Return Rs.2250/- to the Bank account of the complainant.

Further, the licencee TPWODL advised to eliminate the inefficient officers who acts arbitrarily think himself is all in all to avoid unnecessary litigation.

No award as to cost.

         PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION TODAY I.E DATED 15^th DAY OF April ’2024