DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO. 22 OF 2022
Date of Filing: 12.07.2022
Date of Order: 06.03.2023
Sri Chandra Sekher Panda,
S/o Late Laxmi Kanta Panda,
At-Chakara Bisoi Market, Madikunda Squire
PO/PS: Phulbani
District-Kandhamal ……………….. Complainant.
Versus.
- The Assistant Executive Engineer (Electricity)
TPSODL, Electrical Section,
PO/PS-Phulbani
District-Kandhamal
- Executive Engineer (Elect),.TPSODL, Electrical Section,
PO/PS- Phulbani
District- Kandhamal​
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member.
For the Complainant : Mr.Manoj Kumar Sahoo, Advocate
For O.Ps. : Mr.Harish Chandra Moharana, Advocate
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.
Complainant Chandra Sekhar Panda has filed this case U/s 35 of the CP Act of 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties for providing him an erratic energy bill and not rectifying it in spite of repeated approaches and praying therein to direct the Opposite Parties for settlement of outstanding amount which has been wrongly charged and pay a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs. 1,00000/- for causing unnecessary mental, physical and financial harassment and a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- towards cost of litigation.
- Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties for the last 20 years. In the year 2017 due to short circuit, the electrical accessories along with the meter were burnt. After the incident, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties for change of meter which was never complied and for about 8 months energy bills were issued on load factor basis and suddenly in one bill, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was claimed as energy bill. After receiving the bill, the complainant approached Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Executive Engineer, TPSODL, Phulbani. But, nothing was done to redress his grievance. It is alleged that the Ops never gave service to the complainant and provide low voltage power supply which leads to loss of business and also disconnects power supply for long hours without prior intimation. The Opposite Parties instead of rectifying erratic energy bill have threatened to disconnect power supply unless the amount is paid full for which he has filed this case before this Commission for the relief as discussed above.
- After receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through advocate on 29.07.2022. But in spite of repeated adjournments granted to them, they failed to file a written version.
- The complainant in support of this case has filed copy of energy bills and copy of the allegation given to the Opposite Parties and has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit.
- It is settled principle of law that where the Opposite Parties appears but do not file their written version, it is deemed that they have admitted the claims against them. Since in the instant case, the Opposite Parties appeared through their advocate and did not challenge the allegations made by the complainant in any manner, the evidence led by the complainant stands uncontroverted. It is seen from the energy bill that the Opposite Parties have issued the bill to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 67321.97p. There is no provision in the Electricity Act and the rules and regulations governing supply and distribution of electricity that the licensee i.e. the supplier of the electricity shall go on issuing bills on load factor basis and to enhance it to their sweet will for a pretty long period. It is the duty of the Opposite Parties to provide a meter to the consumer if he does not provide a meter to the supply company. In the instant case, nothing has been done by the Opposite Parties to install a new meter after burning of the old meter.
- It is clear from the discussions made above that the Opposite Parties have failed to act in accordance with the provisions laid down in the OERC (Conditions of Supply) and Distribution Code-2004 for which they are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Instead of rectifying the energy bill, the Opposite Parties threatened to disconnect power supply for which it caused severe mental, physical and financial harassment to the complainant and he was compelled to knock at the doors of this Commission. As a case of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice coupled with harassment is made out against the Opposite Parties, they are liable to compensate the petitioner and hence, the order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed to install a new meter in the premises of the complainant within a week and revise the energy bills of the complainant issued on load factor basis, on the basis of the average of the reading of the new meter for six consecutive months. During this period, the Opposite Parties shall not disconnect power supply to the shop of the complainant so long as the revised bill is not provided to him. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30000/- (thirty thousand)only towards deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment and a sum of Rs. 10000/-(ten thousand)only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest of Rs. 12% per annum shall be charged on the whole amount from the date of order till its compliance.
Computerized & corrected by me.
I Agree
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 6th day of March 2023 in the presence of the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
