Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/20

Sri Anirudha Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assl Teacher Gudobandha,and others - Opp.Party(s)

Self

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 20/ 2015.                                          Date.       08.    3    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

Sri Anirudha Panda, At/Po:Gudiabandha, Via:Padmapur,   Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                   765  025..                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. Sri  Yudhister Sahu, Assistant Teacher, Basantadevi Vidyapitha, At/Po:Gudiabandha, Via:  Padmapur, Dist: Rayagada, 765 025.
2. The  Jr. Engineer, Electrical Section, SOUTH.CO., Padmapur, Dist:Rayagada.
3. The Sub-divisional Officer, SOUTH.CO. Electrical Sub-division,Gumuda,Dist:Rayagada.
4. The Executiive  Engineer, SOUTH.CO., Electrical Division, Gunupur, Dist:Rayagada.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Vigilance Enfocement Cell,SOUTH.CO., Rayagada.

… Opposite parties.

 

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P No.1:- In person.

For the O.Ps 2 to 5 :- In person.

JUDGMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non installation of new  service line to the house premises of the  complainant.  The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

That the complainant is a settler of  Basantadevi Charitable Trust  which runs the MITS Group of  institution all over  Odisha  given his house rent to the  O.P. No.1 since  2007. The  O.P. NO.1  had installed a malfunctioned Meter No. 313202490175 from  2007. The  O.Ps 2,3,4 had installed a meter illegally in house premises of the complainant without verifying  the documents.  The O.P. No.5  had entered  in house premises of the complainant illegally and issued   notice to pay  Rs.44,495/-.    In  turn the complainant had  paid Rs. 5,000/-  to install new line to the house premises of the  complainant  and  approached the O.Ps  from pillar to post   but the O.Ps  did  not  supplied  and paid deaf ear.   Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.P. No.2 to given new  Electrical  service  connection  in the name of the complainant and  ordered the O.P. No.5 to collect  the  outstanding  amount from  the O.P. No.1.

 

On being the O.P. No.1 appeared  in person and  filed written version and produce all the documents  upon which the O.P. No. 1 intends to rely in support of his defence. The O.Ps taking one and other pleas in the written version inter alia  sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.P No. 1    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The  O.Ps 2 to 5 filed joint written version and  submitted that the above complaint is not legally maintainable in the eyes of law.  The O.Ps taking one and other pleas in the written version inter alia  sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps 2 to 5    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.Ps  appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  complainant  and O.Ps .  Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

Before  traversing  in detail the several material  allegations  averments, and contentions  made in the complaint  under reply  the O.P. No.2 to  5 submits the preliminary objections  regarding the maintainability of the present case. 

  Both the parties advanced their arguments  vehemently  touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                FINDINGS.

On perusal of the written version filed  by the  O.P. No.1 it is revealed that  the Assistant Engineer, Vigilence Enforcement   Cell, SOUTH.CO, Rayagada had  imposed penalty  towards  theft of electricity  a sum of Rs. 12,580/-  against the O.P. No.1.  As per  their advice of Vigilence Cell   Rs.12,580/- has been paid  by the O.P. No.1  vide receipt No. 405140 Dt.4.2.2015 copies of the money receipt   enclosed in the file which is marked as Annexure-I. Again  the O.P. No.1  submitted  in their written version   stating that  while vacating the house of the complainant  he had submitted  an  application   Dt. 2.4.2014 and Dt. 9.2.2015  to the O.Ps for permanent disconnection of power supply of consumer  No. 11-C-2725 /PR ( 313202490175) which was received by the O.P.  on Dt. 9.2.2-1015 which are marked as  Annexure-2 and Annexure-3. Further  the O.P. No.1 in their written  version vide para-5  clearly mentioned  that the question of setting of mal-functioning meter No. 3132024901175  from the year 2007 till the date of vacation  does not arise as the O.P. No.1 was paying   the electrical charges  regularly   as per readings of the  SOUTH.CO.

This forum observed after receipt of the notice from this forum the O.P. No.1 promptly deposited the outstanding amount towards  energy charges against consumer No. 11-C-2725 /PR ( 313202490175)  and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1.

The  O.P. No.2 to 5  submitted   in their written version  that  the complainant had prayed for a new  electricity connection in his name. In para-6 of the written version  the O.P. No. .2 to 5 clearly mentioned  earlier there was two electricity supply in the same premises in one in the name of his spouse named Smt. Basanti Kumari Panda and another in the name of one Yudhister Sahu(Tenant).  The service connection which was in the name of his spouse has been disconnected and an arrear  amount of Rs. 11,176/-  is outstanding. 

In para -7  the O.P. No.2 to 5 clearly  discussed as per the Electricity  Act, 2003 so also Regulation 10(i) of the OERC (Condition of supply) code 2004 mandates that” if the applicant  in respect of an earlier agreement executed in his/her name or in the name of the  spouse, parents or in the name of a firm or company with which he/she was associated either as a partner, director or managing director, is in arrears of electricity dues or other dues for the same  premises payable to the licensee, the application for supply shall not be allowed by the engineer until the arrear are paid in full”.

On perusal of the written version filed by the O.Ps  it is revealed that the complainant is a defaulter towards payment energy charges  to the O.Ps.  If the complainant wants to take new connection he should clear the outstanding dues of the O.Ps.

This forum agreed with the views taken by the  O.Ps   in their written version and documents  filed in support of this case.   The complainant is directed to clear the outstanding dues and take new service  connection.

            It is held  and  reported in C.P.R-2007(1) page No. 194  the Hon’ble Kerala State C.D.R.Commission where  in observed “ Land lord could not ask for another  new connection of electricity for his premises where connection already existing in the name of land lord was disconnected due to default  in payment  of energy  charges” .

 

Thus,  it    becomes clear that even on merits, complainant is  not entitled to  any claim.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

 

ORDER.

In resultant the  petition filed by the complainant stands dismissed with no order as to cost. The complainant is directed to clear the  outstanding dues and to avail new service  connection. The O.P. No. 2 to 5 are directed after receipt  of outstanding amount from the complainant new  service  connection be supplied forthwith. The interim order passed on Dt.24.8.2015 by this forum made final. There is no order as to cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on  this              08  th. day of        March, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.