Orissa

StateCommission

A/665/2017

The Sub Divisional Officer, Electrical Sub-Division no.1, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bansidhar Bhoi - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. S.S. Patra & Assoc.

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ODISHA, CUTTACK
 
First Appeal No. A/665/2017
( Date of Filing : 20 Dec 2017 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 21/11/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/32/2017 of District Balangir)
 
1. The Sub Divisional Officer, Electrical Sub-Division no.1,
Bolangir, WESCO, At/po/Dist- Bolangir.
2. The Executive Engineer, Electrical
Bolangir Electrcal Division, WESCO, At/PO/Dist- Bolangir.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Bansidhar Bhoi
S/o- Late Kunu Bhoi, At- Sudapada, Bolangir Town, Po/Dist- Bolangir.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:M/s. S.S. Patra & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1
 M/s. S.K. Panda & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1
Dated : 01 Feb 2023
Final Order / Judgement

 

          Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.      The caseof the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is a regular consumer under the OPs and was paying the electricity dues regularly. It is alleged inter aliathat  without valid reasons and without notice to the complainant the power supply was disconnected to the house of the complainant on 15.3.2017. The complainant requested to the authorities for correction of the bill and reconnection of electricity. Since the OPs did not listen to the request of the complainant, the complaint case was filed.

4.      OPs appeared but subsequently, they were set ex parte on 20.10.2017. While the case was fixed for ex parte hearing on 7.11.2017, the OPs filed written version and the learned District Forum accepted the written version. According to the OPs the complainant has defaulted in making payment from May, 2016 to March, 2017 and as such due to non-payment the power supply was disconnected on 15.3.2017. It is further case of the OPs that the electricity bill was issued to the complainant as per the meter reading and after reconnection the bill has been revised by adjusting Rs.7,417/- and final bill for Rs.21,048/- was issued. It is submitted that there is no other ground to revise the bill and the meter of the complainant was not defective. So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forumpassed the following order:-

                             “xxxxxxxxx

            The OPs are directed to revise the electricity bills of the complainant from March 2017 to till date within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only, for the negligence act of the OPs in not filing the version under provision of Sec. 14(d) of the C.P.Act to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The OPs are also further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only, towards cost to the complainant within the aforesaid period.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in  law by not considering the prayer of the complainant but the impugned order was passed. According to him, there was only prayer for revision of bill up to March, 2017 but the learned District Forum has allowed the revision of bill from March, 2017 to till date of passing of the impugned order i.e. November, 2017. Further, he submitted that they have no negligence because they have revised the bill for which the order u/s 14(d) of the Act is unnecessary. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellantsand perused the DFR including impugned order.

8.      It appears from the impugned order itself that the OPs were set ex parte because of non-filing of the written version but subsequently the written version was accepted and considered. According to theprovisions of the Act, the learned District Forum has no power to set aside theex parte order and accept the written version because it has no power of review under the Act. In that regard the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However, the submissionof learned counsel for the appellants is that already they have revised the  bill and further revision of bill  would amount to order beyond the scope of the complainant. On this ground also, we find the impugned order is liable to be set aside. So in view of discussion the impugned order is set aside.

9.      The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

          The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.