DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.4 of 2015
Dr.Santosh Kumar Das, S/o. Late Gokula Ch. Das, R/o. village – Champapur, P.O./P.S. Birmaharajpur, District – Subarnapur.
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. The Section Officer, Birmaharajpur, Electrical Section, At/ P.O./P.S. Birmaharajpur, District – Subarnapur.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Birmaharajpur, Electrical Section, At/ P.O./P.S. Birmaharajpur, District – Subarnapur.
3. The Executive Engineer, Sonepur Electrical Circle, At/ P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur.
4. The Managing Director, WESCO, At/P.O./P.S. Burla, District – Sambalpur
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for Complainant ………. Sri R.Agrawal
Advocate for the O.Ps. ………. Sri B.K.Bishi
Present
Sri S.C.Nayak, President
Smt.S.Mishra, Lady Member
Sri H.Padhan, Male Member
Date of Judgment Dt.25.07.2017
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
The complainant, a retired doctor, has filed this case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps., the Officials of WESCO.
Shorn of unnecessary details the complainant’s case is described below.
The complainant avers that he is a consumer of electricity under domestic category. He is not a defaulter and pays his electricity dues regularly. He has alleged that the O.Ps. are harassing him for the last 15 years. They are not giving bills regularly. As a result of this the complainant is unable to get rebate. On 16.2.2012 complainant has cleared his arrear dues vide money receipt No.1302913137 and 130291 3138 for Rs.1528.00 and Rs.7865.00 respectively availing 40% discount under O.T.S. scheme. But the O.Ps. have claimed the arrear amounts in the subsequent bill. The complainant has made several requests to the O.Ps. to rectify the mistake, but the O.Ps. have not taken any steps in this regard.
On 7.12.2014 the complainant lodged complaint before the grievance redressal forum of WESCO, but it has not yielded any result. The complainant also reported the matter to the O.P. No.2, through Regd. Post, but he has not taken any step in this regard.
-: 2 :-
Complainant avers that due to deficiency in service and illegal act of the O.Ps. he has suffered mental agony and financial loss besides harassment. So the complainant has prayed that the O.Ps. be directed to rectify the bill and provide bills regularly every month. The O.Ps. be directed to return the excess amount taken from him. He has also prayed that the O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs.95,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.Ps. have filed version. They have averred that this forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the lis. According to them the designated authority under the code is the proper authority to decide the lis. They also alleged that the complainant has approached the G.R.F. of WESCO and as such he should not be allowed to raise multiple litigations. They avers that WESCO is giving proper service to its consumers. They also deny that they are harassing the consumer for last 15 years. They admit that the complainant has availed benefits under O.T.S. schemes. But they denied to have claimed arrear amounts in subsequent bills. They allege that the O.Ps. are taking utmost care in sending bills of all consumers well before the due date.
They alleged that the complainant has no genuine case against the O.Ps., therefore the statutory forum was not competent to pass any order as sought for by the complainant. They avers that they are in no way deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
On the inter se pleading of the parties the following issues are framed :-
1. Has the Forum jurisdiction to decide the lis ?
2. Have the O.Ps. committed deficiency in service ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the O.Ps. We have also perused the materials on record. Learned counsel for the O.Ps. contended that this Forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the lis as there is the designated authority to decide the dispute. We are afraid, we are unable to accept this contention. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other laws in force. It is profitable to quote Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is reproduced below :
“Section 3 – Act not in derogation of any other law – The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. ”
-: 3 :-
Because, there is the designated authorities doors of the consumer forums cannot be closed for the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he has raised grievance before the G.R.F. of WESCO. But it has not yielded any result, status of the grievance of the complainant before the G.R.F. is not informed to us either by the complainant or the O.Ps. But the complainant has mentioned in his complaint petition that his grievance before the G.R.F. has not yielded any result. The O.Ps. also admit in their written version that as the complainant’s case was not genuine, the statutory forum was not inclined to pass any order. From the aforesaid scenario we are inclined to believe that the matter is no more subjudice in the G.R.F.
Be it as it may be G.R.F. is not competent to decide deficiency in service. So a case for deficiency in service can be maintainable before this Forum, claiming compensation for the same. So the first issue is addressed accordingly.
Now it is to be seen whether the O.Ps. have committed deficiency in service or not. The complainant has averred that the O.Ps. are not giving him monthly bill regularly. In this region WESCO is giving bimonthly bills. So a direction can not be given to supply monthly bill to a single consumer. There is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that the O.Ps. supplied 4 months bill at a time as alleged by the complainant.
The complainant has alleged that he has cleared his arrear electricity dues on 16.2.2012 by availing 40% concession. In para 6 of their version the O.Ps. have also admitted that the complainant availed benefits under O.T.S. scheme. We have perused the bills details filed by the complainant as well as the O.Ps. in this case. Upon perusal of the same we find that in the bill for the month of March 2012 of the complainant an amount of Rs.5243.20 has been shown as arrear. We failed to understand when the complainant has cleared up his arrear dues in the month of February 2012 how a sum of Rs.5243.20 was shown as arrear in the bill of March 2012. This according to us is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.
Now it is to be seen to what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Since the complainant has already cleared his arrear electricity dues. This amount of Rs.5243.20 shown as arrear in his bill should be deducted if it has not been deducted in the mean time. The complainant is also entitled to compensation. Taking the totality of the facts
-: 4 :-
and circumstances in to consideration we are of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment would meet the ends of justice. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation. We find that the bills of domestic consumers are maintained and monitored by the Sectional Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer at Sub-Division level. So the O.P. No.1 and 2 are made jointly and severally liable for the defici9ency. The O.P. No.3 and 4 are freed from the liability. We order accordingly.
O R D E R
It is hereby ordered as follows :-
1. The O.P. No.1 and 2 shall deduct an amount of Rs.5243/- from the bill amount of the complainant if not deducted in the mean time.
2. The O.P. No.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two thousands) only to the complainant.
All these should be done within one month from the date of order. Complaint is allowed in part.
Dated the 25th July 2017
Typed to my dictation
I agree. I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Pradhan, Smt.S.Mishra, Sri S.C.Nayak
Male Member Lady Member President
Dt.25.07.2017 Dt.25.07.2017 Dt.25.07.2017
