Orissa

Kendrapara

CC/21/2020

Pradipta Kumar Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer, CESU - Opp.Party(s)

Self

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
KENDRAPARA, ODISHA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/21/2020
( Date of Filing : 06 Mar 2020 )
 
1. Pradipta Kumar Dash
S/o- Ramesh Chandra Dash At-Jaitalong Po- Tyendakude Ps- Garadpur
Kendrapara
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Executive Engineer, CESU
Kendrapra Division No.II At/Po-Marshagahi
Kendrapara
Odisha
2. Divisional Head,
Enzen Global Solution Pvt.Ltd. At/Po/Marshaghai
Kendrapara
Odisha
3. Junior Manager,
Enzen Global Solution Pvt.Ltd. At/Po-Garadpur
Kendrapara
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Prabodha Kumar Dash PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Bibekananda Das MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Self, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Sri P.K.Samal & Associates, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 15 Mar 2023
Final Order / Judgement

MR. BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER:-                      

                     This is an application U/S-35 of C.P.Act, 2019.Complainant being aggrieved by inaction and illegal action of Ops filed present case.

Brief facts:-

                      The Complainant is a consumer from 1985 to till today having consumer ID no. 502So2094001 and Consumer A/C No. 02094001 under Marshaghai Divisison and Garadpur Section. Grievances of the Complainant is that his energy bill raised by Ops on average basis when 1999 Cyclone damaged all the transmission line for 6 months and the Ops always taken average bill without actual meter reading. The Ops are authority of Enzen as a franchisee for distribution during the period against whom the Complainant filed present C.C.Case. No date available at Ops, those available data given found no meter reading in various years only average bill taken throughout the years. The Complainant raised the issues before Enzen, CESU, TPCODL when they changes time to time. The present case pending since 2021 and two years has already passed no written version filed by Ops only Vakaltnama filed 2 years back. It is the duty of the distribution licensee to redress the consumer complaint, but all the licensee did not done any such acts. Today the corporate licensee do not redressing consumer problem and as per Electricity Act, 2003 taking advantages of Section-126 & 127 imposing assessment heavily which are very arbitrarily and illegal and by such acts the corporate entity collecting huge funds in a profit motive. The business conducted by the Ops are always prejudicing the consumer. Every one in each 3 consumer affected illegal assessment of huge value and intentionally hiking load factors. The legislator drafted Electricity Act where Sec-126 and 127 both section under the authority of licensee are harmful to consumer. The present arrear is Rs. 10599/- as per receipt of bill Dec-2021.

                   This Commission have no jurisdiction to decide matter relating to section-126 & 127 and 135 to 140 and 150 as per section 145 as a bar. This Commission have power to adjudicate arrear dispute, billing metering, connections, disconnections issues and have jurisdiction within district more than GRF & obudsman.These are established by Regulation of O.E.R.C. This Commission established by act of Parliament and a quasi judicial statutory body have power to adjudicate issues relating to electrical dispute. The GRF are deducting the arrear into consideration of irregularities by licensee.

                   We found the Ops use to raise bill regularly on average not as per the meter reading throughout several years and no reply relating to Cyclone hit period. The energy was the franchise of CESU & he has no authority to assess the penalty and the licensee charged time to time the TPCODL as a deemed licensee as per Govt. notification the same a Corporate entity imposing penalty rampantly.

Section 100 of C.P.Act, 2019 says this Act not in derogation of any of the law but addition to any other law, therefore DCDRC has jurisdiction to adjudicate electricity dispute.

Section 175 electricity Act, 2003- Provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. Section-174 says overriding effect in any in consistency in laws.

This Commission have jurisdiction to exercise its power have jurisdiction to exercise its power within district in interest of Justice.

We are setting the Ops as ex-parte and deducting the arrear bill 80% and rest will be paid by the Complainant within 2(two) months. Therefore 20% (Rs. 10,599/-) is equal to Rs. 2119,80/- which the Complainant shall pay.

                                                   O R D E R

                      It is directed to the Complainant shall pay @20% of arrear amount of Rs. 10,599/- which is Rs. 2119,80/- within two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order, the Ops shall provide receipt and revise the present bill accordingly failing which the Ops are liable for execution proceeding as per C.P.Act, 2019.The C.C.Case No. 21/20 is accordingly disposed off.

                Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.

          Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 15th day of March,2023.                           

                                             I, agree.

                                                Sd/-                                     Sd/-

                                        PRESIDENT                         MEMBER

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Prabodha Kumar Dash]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Bibekananda Das]
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.