Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/51/2021

Trinath Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.S.D.O. Electrical, Sadar I Ainthapali - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Das & associates

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 51/2021

 

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

Trinath Panda

S/o- Late Rajaram Panda

R/o- Sambalpur Town Unit No.14,

Khtardhua, Gopalmal Sambalpur,

Ps-Ainthapali,Tah/Dist-Sambalpur-768004                            ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

1. S.D.O. Electrical, Sadar I Ainthapali,

At/Po-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha, 768004                          

2. Bigillance Squared WESCO Utility, Head Quarter,

At/Po-Burla, Dist-Sambalpur, PIN-768017, Odisha

3. Executive Engineer Electrical,

Office of the Executive Engineer General Electrical Division

Sambalpur, At-Bhutapada, Hans Nagar,

Sambalpur-768001, Odisha                                 …………...Opp.Parties

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Sri. A.K.Dash, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                                 :-         Sri. S.K.Dora, Advocate & Associates

 

Date of Filing:29.09.2021,Date of Hearing :17.10.2022 Date of Judgement : 21.11.2022

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The Complainant come to the Commission alleging deficiency in service of the O.Ps. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is having a house over Khata No. 328 Mouza-Danipali, Sambalpur Town Unit No.14. The house is jointly owned by Rajakrushna Panda, uncle of the O.P. and his father Rajaram Panda. After death of Raja Krushna Panda, his sons let out their share of house on rent basis.

The Complainant is having Consumer No. 411722080205 with the O.Ps in the name of Rajaram Panda. On 24.01.2019 Vigilance Squard visited the house and without going through above facts fined Rs. 49,264/- to the Complainant. The Complainant is paying regular bill and last paymentmade Rs. 25,000/- in December 2020 and Rs. 10,000/- in March, 2021 Raja Krushna Panda, his house is in ground floor. On 25.12.2020 the O.P. No.1 was requested to exempt the fine but the O.Ps remained silent.

Being aggrieved this Complaint was filed.

2. The O.Ps after appearance filed their version. The Complainant’s father Rajaram Panda, Consumer No. 411722080205 has been permitted 3KW under LT-Domestic power supply. The case is totally based on section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. On 24.05.2019 the vigilance team found five number of extra connections from the nearby pole having a load of 3KW. Inspection report was prepared. Out of five connections only one connection was illegal. The Complainant deliberately locked the premises for which load details for 4nos. connections could not ascertained. Representative of Complainant refused to sign the inventory report. Assessment was made vide letter No. 449 dated 25.05.2019 amounting to Rs. 49,264/- Opportunity was provided to appear before assessing officer and finally assessment order passed on 21.06.2019.

In June 2021 the Complainant approached the O.Ps for settlement by reducing 50% assessed amount. The Complainant submitted an undertaking cum-declaration on 28.06.2021. Where he undertook to pay 50% to-wards full and final settlement. The matter forwarded to higher authority for approval and it was approved on Rs. 24,632/- in July 2021. The Complainant instead of payment filed the complaint. The Complaint is not maintainableas definedu/s 2(1)(c) of the consumer Protection Act, 2019 and case u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 does not cover under the Act. There is no any deficiency on the part of the O.Ps and accordingly complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and the O.Ps and the following issues are framed:
103606587.  

1. Whether this complaint is not maintainable in view of assessment u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. Whether the O.Ps are deficient in their service?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Whether this complaint is not maintainable in view of assessment u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The O.Ps have referred the Judgement of U.P. Power corporation Ltd & others Vs. Axis Ahmed (2013) 8SCC491. An assessment cannot be challenged which is assessed u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 when there is unauthorized use of electricity and further appeal provision is there u/s 127 of the Act, 2003. In the present case on 24.05.2019 the vigilance team found unauthorized use of electricity by the Complainant, prepared the inventory, representative of the Complainant refused to sign. An opportunity has been given to the Complainant to defend his case and ultimately final assessment was made on 21.06.2019. The Complainant undertook the settlement @Rs. 24,632/- on 28.06.2021, signed the undertaking cum declaration. It proves the unauthorized use of power by the Complainant. When the guilt is admitted it needs no any proof.

The contention of the O.Ps is that when assessment made, it is final and conclusive and only appeal can lie to the higher authority. The Consumer Commission is not concerned with assessment rather it is to see that whether the power supplier procedurally conducted the inventory or not which is a part of  its service.

In the instant case as the guilt is admitted, the issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2 Whether the O.Ps are deficient in their service?

From the supra discussion it is clear that the O.Ps have conducted the inventory, given chance to the Complainant to defend, Opportunity was given to appeal, undertook to settle the dispute and ultimately settled before the committee of management. As due procedure has been followed I do not found any deficiency on the part of the O.Ps rather the Complainant admitted his guilt and till date not taken any step to substitute him in the place of his deceased father Rajaram Panda.

The issue is answered in favour of the O.Ps.

Issue No.3 What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

From the above discussion as the dispute has been settled for Rs. 24,632/- on 28.06.2021, filing of this complaint is a burden on this Commission. The Complainant can not maintain a double standard; he should come to the Commission with clean hands.

Accordingly, it is ordered:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. The parties are to bear their own cost.

Order pronounced in open court on this 21^st Nov 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.