Orissa

Cuttak

CC/160/2023

Rita Priyadarsini Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Executive Officer,TPCODL - Opp.Party(s)

S Mohanty & associates

15 Feb 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.160/2023

 

Rita Priyadarshini Mohanty,

D/o: Late Kishore Chandra Mohanty,

At:Mundamala,P.O/PS:Choudwar,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                   ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Chief Executive Officer,TPCODL,

Corporate Office,Bhuaneswar.

 

2.        S.D.O,Electrical,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Choudwar,Cuttack

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    05.06.2023

Date of Order:  15.02.2024

 

For the complainant:           Mr. S.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps                :          Mr. P.K.Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.   

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President          

Case of the complainant as made out from her complaint petition in short is that while she was at her office in the Urban Cooperative Bank,Cuttack, the meter reader of the Electricity Department had visited her house and had charged her energy consumption bill on its average which according to the complainant was excess billing and it continued till 2022.   Thus, challenging the excess billing of the said Meter Reader, the complainant has come up with this case before this Commission demanding back the bill amount as paid by her for the year 2021 & 2022 to the tune of Rs.53,000/- together with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards her mental agony and sufferings.  She has further prayed for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards her litigation expenses from the O.Ps and has also prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with her complaint petition, the complainant has annexed a copy of document in order to prove her case.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version wherein they have urged that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  She has suppressed the material facts and her case is also barred for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.  They admit that the complainant is a domestic consumer of electricity having consumer account number 20412076 and subsequently her new consumer number is 80015866074.  But they refuted to the allegation as made by the complainant regarding the excess billing.  In the month of July,2015, the meter of the complainant got defective for which average billing was done as per OERC Condition of Supply Code 2004 till the replacement of the meter.  According to them, the consumer/complainant is a habitual defaulter in paying the energy dues and had paid the same after disconnection of her power supply.  By May,2023, an amount of Rs.44,169/- was outstanding against this consumer/complainant.  The O.Ps have also challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission since because there is alternative provision of Grievance Redressal Forum(GRF) as per Sec-42(5) of the Electricity Act,2003.  Accordingly, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition with heavy cost.

          Together with their written version they have also annexed copy of their document to prove their stand.

             The complainant has filed her evidence affidavit here in this case but the contents of her evidence affidavit when perused, appears to be a reiteration of the averments as made in her complaint petition.

          The O.Ps have also filed evidence affidavit through one Samir Kumar Padhiary working as S.D.O and similarly the contents of the evidence affidavit of the said Samir Kumar Padhiary when perused, it appears to be a reiteration of the contents of the written version.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issue no.i.

Out of the three issues, issue no.i being a pertinent issue, is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

The complainant has approached this Commission with a prayer that the O.Ps had charged her energy dues exorbitantly.  Per contra, the plea of the O.Ps is that since when there is provision as per the Electricity Act,2003, the matter is to be decided by the G.R.F(Grievance Redressal Forum).  In this context the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide its order dt.16.5.2023 in the case of Executive Engineer (Electrical), SOUTH Co Utility, Paralakhemundi Electrical Division and Anr. Vrs. Sakuntala Behera and Ors. have held that the dispute as regards to electricity dues is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission and have directed the complainant/consumer of electricity to approach the Grievance Redressal Forum in short GRF as per Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act,2003.  Accordingly, as it appears here in this case, the matter relates to billing dispute in between the complainant and the O.Ps and this Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide such dispute.  It is for the said reason, the case as filed by the complainant before this Commission is not maintainable.  This, issue is answered accordingly.

 

 

Issues no. ii & iii.

From the discussions as made above, when the case of the complainant is not maintainable, further discussion on the other issues is unnecessary.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 15^th day of February,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member