DATE OF FILING: 24.06.2019

DATE OF DISPOSAL: 31.03.2023.

Sri P.Surya Rao, President:  

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O,.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission. 

2. The fact of the case as averred by the complainant is that, he is a bonafide consumer of the Opposite Parties bearing consumer No. A3-D-998 and new account No. 3422020-70177 situated at Gandhinagar 4^th lane, Berhampur.  The aforesaid meter was installed since long on the new meter was installed on 5.2.2013. The Southco person visited spot on 10.01.2013 and issued a detail of meter inspection and load census bearing No.7658 which contend that “Accu check bearing No. ACL 40306 results found OK”. There was no such assessment, provisional or final of the meter reading and there was no such allegation of meter tampering. Since the complainant was harassed causing mental agony, filed complaint case No. 130 of 2013 before this Forum which was disposed on 25.04.2018 with direction the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before any other Forum having competent jurisdiction for redressal. In advertently the complainant was given the impression of provisional assessment under section 126 and basing on the same this Forum disposed the complaint as stated above that the O.P.in his office letter No.1000 dated 07.01.2019 addressed to the Executive Engineer-cum- DEI, Berhampur stated that after hearing the consumer. The assessment had been waived and no final assessment had made also no such assessment had been reflected in the electricity bill. On 5.2.2013 the O.P. fixed new meter in my house. On 26.2.2013 the J.E. and S.D.O. electrical forcibly collected Rs.2000/- penalty from the complainant. First they demanded Rs.15,000/- bribe and told me that if he will not give this amount then they will report that I have tampered the meter but if you will pay this amount then we will report that the meter jumped. As I did not give Rs.15,000/- they have forcibly collected penalty Rs.2000/- from me. On 5.2.2013 the OP. fixed new meter in the house of complainant but they did not give me bill of the new meter. I have filed C.C. No. 130/13 before this Forum  and the O.P. did not furnish the bill up to 18.3.2015 prior to that the OP has not issued any notice through any means regarding any arrears.  The O.P. did not furnish bill for two years. There is ruling of APEX Court that if the consumer will not be provided with bill for continuously two years then the amount will be automatically waived out. There is a ruling that within one month after fixation of new meter the department shall give bill otherwise, they will pay Rs.100/- per day penalty to the consumer.  The S.D.O. electrical given me writing that it is not his responsibility and it is the responsibility of vigilance cell. The complainant several times met the O.P. including S.D.O. vigilance for clarification as to any 126 proceeding against him. But they always shifted the burden to others. They are filing false affidavit in different Forums just to harass complainant intentionally.  The O.P. have submitted false affidavit against me twice. The complainant approached electrical inspector and sought clarification from him as to pendency of any 126 proceeding against me. As I have no arrear nor I have committed any illegal act the Deputy Electrical Inspector was pleased to pass order in my favour. For the wrong action of the O.Ps, invalid submissions before this Hon’ble Forum, the complainant suffered from harassment and mental agony at fault. The O.P. did not issue me the red notice either in person or by post as stipulated under the law but they posted the red notice on my front wall their by defamed me before the sahi people lowered down my image before the local people. Thus the complainant sustained damage approximately assessed at the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-  and the O.P. is liable to pay the same. At the time of illegal disconnection of eclectic line his son was preparing for examination and later appeared in Board examination conducted by ICSE. The O.P. did not listen to his genuine request for which his son could not read well and due to electric line disconnection he could not prepare for examination in the study hour during night so he could not secure good marks to the last of his ability. Thus the complainant sustained loss assessed at the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Just prior to illegal disconnection his wife underwent major heart operation and by the time electric supply was highly essential. The complainant suffered mentally and physically of Rs.4,00,000/-, Compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for litigation costs in the best interest of justice.  

The complainant filed the following list of documents:

1. Xerox copy of meter Inspection.
2. Final Assessment letter dated 30.01.2019.
3. Copy of letter dated 07.01.2019.

3. Admitting the C.C. this Commission has issued notice to the Opposite Parties and duly acknowledging the same. The O.Ps appeared through their advocate and filed written version. However the Vakalatanama does not bear any court fee stamp and also does not bear welfare stamp.

4. The O.Ps in their written version stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are not all correct as such the complainant is put to strict proof of all such allegations, which are not specifically admitted. As against the facts mentioned in para-1 of the complaint petition, it is submitted that the complainant is a consumer of electricity under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No. 342202070177 (A3-D-998) having contact demand of 2 K.W. It is true to say that the premises of the complainant having Con. No. A3-D-998 (342202070177) was inspected by the Vigilance & Enforcement Wing, City Circle, Berhampur and during inspection it was found that the meter body was tampered and the TC seal was also tampered,  however from the accucheck result it was found that the meter was OK, and the vigilance team suggested to change the meter immediately. On the basis of such meter tampering, provisional assessment from January 2011 to December 2012 was made to Rs.16,039/- and the complainant was asked to file his objection to the provisional assessment, but the complainant did not file any objection. However, on consideration of the fact that the status of the meter was found OK though the body of the meter was tampered, the provisional assessment was waived out and no final assessment order was made by the vigilance wing, nor the assessed amount of Rs.16,039/- was debited/added in the electricity bill of the complainant. As against the facts mentioned in para-3 & 5 of the complaint petition regarding harassment and causing mental agony to the complainant is false and hereby denied. Without any basis the complainant had filed C.C. case No. 130/2013, which was disposed of by this Ld. Forum by dismissing the case of the complainant. It is important to state here that at no point of time any penal bill has been imposed in the electricity bill of the complainant; as such the allegation of harassment is baseless. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is a litigant monger who wants to escape from payment of outstanding electricity dues accrued against him, for which he has been regularly raising disputes before various Forums for the self same cause of action, which is already been decided.

As against facts stated in para-6 of the complaint petition, it is submitted that as the body of the meter was tampered and there was no TC seal of the meter, as suggested by the Vigilance wing a meter was installed in the premises of the complainant on 05.02.2013. The allegation that an amount of Rs.2000/- has been collected from the complainant forcibly and an amount of Rs.15,000/- was demanded from him as bribe is false in toto. The complainant is required to produce to strict proof of such allegations made against the O.Ps. The complainant has paid Rs.2000/- towards cost of new meter.  The facts mentioned in para-7 of the petition that after change of the meter bill was not issued on the basis of the consumption of the new meter is false. In response to the same, it is submitted that the complainant after change of the new meter in his premises did not allow the meter reader to take the meter reading and also not deposited the electricity dues in time, for which disconnection notice was issued by the S.D.O.III on 18.02.2015. For nonpayment of the outstanding electricity dues even after issuance of DC notice, the power supply to the premises of the complainant was disconnected on 09.03.2015, after which the complainant filed a case before the G.R.F., Vide GRF CC No. 111/2015.  During course of the hearing of the case before the G.R.F. meter reading was taken by the intervention of the President G.R.F, Berhampur and accordingly the bill of the complainant was revised and an amount of Rs.21,428/- was deducted from the bill to the complainant during April 2015. After revision of the electricity bill, the complainant withdrawn the case filed by him before the GRF by filing a not press memo. The copy of the order passed by G.R.F. Berhampur in GRF C.C. No.111/2015 is enclosed herewith. After revision of the electricity bill, the complainant again did not allow the meter reader to his premises to record the consumption of meter. For such illegal action of the complainant, the complainant was issued notice under section 99(2) of the OERC Code 2004 vide Letter No. 281(3) dated 13.05.2015 and Letter No. 303(3) dated 20.05.2015 to remain present in his premises for taking meter reading by the meter reader, but for the non-cooperation of the complainant in taking the meter reading, again the power supply was disconnected on 20.05.2015 at 5.30 P.M. and then restored on part payment of Rs.10,000/-. So the complainant is playing a hide and seeks game with the O.Ps enjoying the electricity without making payment of the dues time to time. As against the averment that the O.P. did not furnish bill up to 18.3.2015 nor issued any notice regarding arrear, it is submitted that as reiterated above due to not allowing the meter reader/bill distributor, the actual consumption in the meter was not recorded, but the bill was generated in average basis and served to the complainant, and again a disconnection notice was served on the complainant on 18.02.2015 for payment of the outstanding dues. So the allegation that the bills are not served for 2 years is false. The complainant with a view to escape from payment of electricity dues is taking such pleas, which is not maintainable in the eye of law. Again the Ld. PLA, Berhampur in its order dated 29.04.2019 in PLA case No. 153/2018 also discarded the allegations of the complainant holding that so far as limitation to recover the dues is concerned, Sec-56 (2) of the Electricity Act is not applicable in as much as the respondents (in present case the Ops) are continuously showing the dues as recoverable in their consumer abstract. When the matter stood thus, on dated 25.04.2018, the Ld, DCDRF dismissed the CC Case No. 130/2013 after which when the Ops claimed their outstanding electricity dues by issuing disconnection notice dated 24.05.2018, the complainant did not make any payment of the electricity dues, rather filed case before PLA, Berhampur vide PLA case No. 153/2018. The Ld. PLA, Berhampur vide order dated 29.4.2019 directed to revise the bill of the consumer from February 2013 to March 2015taking average consumption of 271 units. In due obedience to the order passed by the PLA, Berhampur the SDO No.III revised the bill and served the revised bill for Rs.24,479/- up to June 2018 on the complainant through postal service, but the postal department returned the letter with remarks as unclaimed on 20.08.2019.

The present proceeding is not maintainable in law and it hits the principle of res-judicata in view of the issues involved in the previous proceedings i.e. CC Case No. 130/2013, G.R.F. Case No. 111/2015 & 87/2017 and finally the order passed by the Hon’ble P.L.A. Berhampur in P.L.A. case No. 153/2018which is finally disposed of in favour of the present O.Ps and same is complied to the true spirit of the order. The O.Ps further submit that the subject matter involved in the proceeding is already decided in the previous proceedings between the parties and no Appeal or Revision has been preferred by either of the parties challenging the orders passed thereon, for which the orders as referred above are binding to the parties and those orders are not to be decided by the Forum as this Forum is not the Appellate Authority of the P.L.A. or the G.R.F. as the case may be. As per law the order passed by the Ld. PLA is amounts to a decree as per C.P.C. and if any Interim order or adjudication in fresh the so called alleged dispute is made by this Hon’ble Forum, that amounts to encroach the right and privileges granted to an authority/ court constituted under a special statute, so the proceeding is not at all maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum and this Forum has not been constituted under the Act to stretch the multiplicity of litigation rather to reduce the litigation from the society and the litigant at the costs of the litigation should be ignored at the time of admission of the case. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hand by suppressing the earlier orders as referred above, as such the complaint petition be treated as a frivolous complaint and liable to be dismissed with cost.  No harassment is being made to the complainant; rather the complainant is harassing the O.Ps and spoiling their valuable time in filing cases for the self same cause of action, which has already been decided by the competent court.  There is no deficiency in service made by the Opposite Parties while rendering service to the complainant, for which the present complaint petition is not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed. So the case filed by the complainant needs to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

The O.Ps filed the following list of documents:

1. Copy of the award passed in P.L.A. case No. 153/2018 by      the Permanent Lok Adalat, Berhampur.
2. Copy of the terms of possible settlement formulated in P.L.A. case No. 153/2018 by the Permanent Lok Adalat,Berhampur.
3. Copy of the order passed in G.R.F. Case No.111/2015 by the G.R.F. Berhampur.
4. Copy of the order passed in C.C. No. 130/2013 by this Hon’ble Forum.
5. Copy of the revised bill of the consumer with compliance to the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Berhampur in P.L.A. case No. 153/2018 along with the copy of the letter No. 569(2) dated 11.09.2019.
6. Copy of the billing abstract of the consumer.

5. Perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and documents available in the case record. Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

 “No court shall try and suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.”

Here the matter has  been directly and substantially in issue between the same parties in earlier suits i.e.

1. Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) Case No. 153/2018.
2. Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF) Case No. 111/2015 & 87/2017.

(3)Consumer Complaint No. 130/2013 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ganjam, Berhampur.

Here in the present case the parties are same. Hence the case is hit U/S 11 of Civil Procedure Code 1908. It is Res-judicata. It does not permit the court to try the case again.

          Any person aggrieved by an order made by District Forum may prefer an appeal to the State Commission U/S 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is not known whether any appeal is preferred by the complainant or not?

          Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 interalia says that if no appeal is preferred against the order of District Consumer Forum, than the order of District Consumer Forum shall be final.

          Thus it is found that the present consumer case is hit Under Section 11 of C.P.C. 1908 being res-judicata.  

          Under the above facts and circumstances of the case the complainant’s case is dismissed against the O.Ps without cost.

 The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to the complainant and also all the Opposite parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.They may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.