Orissa

Kendrapara

CC/56/2017

Bikash Kumar Biswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer, CESU - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Mar 2019

ORDER

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
KENDRAPARA, ODISHA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/56/2017
( Date of Filing : 17 Jul 2017 )
 
1. Bikash Kumar Biswal
S/o- Late Nimain Charan Biswal At- Terama Po- Beghuni
Kendrapara
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, CESU
At/Po/Dist- Kendrapara
Odisha
2. Junior Manager, Enzen
Danpur Section At/Po- Danpur
Kendrapara
Odisha
3. Project Manager, Enzen
At/Po- Kapaleswar
Kendrapara
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Bijoy Kumar Das PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Rajashree Agarwalla MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Self, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Sri P.K.Samal & Associates, Advocate
Dated : 26 Mar 2019
Final Order / Judgement

RAJASHREE AGARWALLA,MEMBER:-

                        Deficiency in service in respect of serving inflated energy bill are the allegations arrayed against Ops.

2.                     Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant’s father is a bonafide consumer under Ops bearing consumer No. 01175028 and was paying monthly energy dues regularly after death of his father basing on actual meter reading. It is alleged that on dt.13.07.2017, Ops served a bill showing an arrear amount of Rs. 10,039/-, which according to complainant is wrongly calculated. Complainant approached many times to the Ops for rectification/revision of the arrear amount. But all went invain. Hence, the complaint before the Forum, the cause of action of the instant dispute arose on dt. 13/07/2017, when the Ops served the disputed bill on the complainant. In the complaint, it is prayed that, a direction may be given to Ops withdraw the bill amount of Rs. 10,039/- served on dt. 13.07.2017, and accordingly to revise the arrear outstanding, further preys for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and not to disconnect the power supply till the final disposal of the case.

3.                   Upon receipt of Notice the Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. P.K.Samal filed written statement alongwith documents. In the written statement, Ops averred that Complainant’s father Nimai Ch. Biswal is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing No. 01175028. It is also averred that, on 28.04.2017, when the CESU, authorities conducted physical verification of the premises detected that complainant-consumer is availing power supply by ‘parallel holding’ from nearby LT line with entire load of the house. Accordingly, a provisional assessment was made and Rs. 10,039/- is imposed for unauthorized use of electricity. The copy of the Physical Verification Report, Provisional Assessment order dtd. 28.04.2017 are filed as Annexure-A & B. It is also averred that, the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum as the dispute relates to U/S126 of I.E.Act-2003 for theft of energy.The Ops also averred that U/S 145,174 and 175 of I.E.Act-2003, this Forum lacks theJurisdiction to entertain the complaint by citing the decision of Honbl’e Apex Court in case of U.P. Power Corporation & others Vrs Anish Ahmed reported in O.L.R. 2014(1) SC-68. In the circumstances Ops have not committed any deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.                                      

4.                     Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Ops and case of the complainant on merit, perused the documents filed into the case. Complainant to substantiate his case filed attested monthly energy bills for the month of June and July-2017. Ops filed documents as per their Annexures. The admitted facts of the case are that, complainant’s deceased father is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing No. 01175028. Considering the facts and documents presented before us it appears that, the dispute of arbitrary enhance of energy bill served on July-2017 as alleged by the complainant is the result of a physical verification conducted by the Op-authorities on dt. 08.04.2017, and after verification imposed penalty U/S 126 of I.E.Act-2003. Though the complaint is silent regarding such verification and later challenged the said physical verification. In the circumstances, we are of the unanimous view that any dispute related to theft of energy or unauthorized use of electricity, U/S 126 of I.E. Act-2003 Foras lacks their Jurisdiction to decide the case as per the observation of Honbl’e Apex Court in case of Anish Ahmed.

                        However, an opportunity should be given to complainant to approach the appropriate authority established for the purpose for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, one month time is given to complainant from the date of the order to approach the appropriate authority, if he desires to do so, till then Ops are hereby restrained to take any coercive action against the complainant.

                  The  Complaint is disposed of without any cost.

            Pronounced in the open Court, this the 26th day of  March,2019.                           

                                 I, agree.

                                   Sd/-                                              Sd/-

                               RESIDENT                                 MEMBER

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Bijoy Kumar Das]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Rajashree Agarwalla]
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.