SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of illegal disconnection of power supply, without serving any prior Notice are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant’s deceased husband namely Sridhar Nayak was a domestic category of consumer under the Ops bearing consumer No.01310673. It is alleged that, Ops served a disconnection Notice for payment of arrear outstandings of Rs. 12,000/- out of the said arrear outstandings, complainant on advice of Op-2 deposited Rs. 5,000/- and filed an application for revision of arrear standings as the billing was disputed. The copies of the Notice dd. 22.2.2015 and application of revision of arrear outstanidngs are filed into the dispute as Annexure 3&4. It is also alleged that, Ops violating the provisions of Sec. 56 of I.E.Act-2003 and O.E.R.C. supply code-2004 and without serving any prior Notice disconnected the power supply to the complainant’s premises on dt. 27.2.2017. Complainant on illegal disconnection of power supply made a grievance before Op-2 on dt. 28.2.2017, which was forwarded to Op-3. But Op-3 stated that without clearing the arrear outstandings power supply will not be restored. The copy of the representation is filed as Annexure-5. According to complainant such illegal disconnection of poser supply gives mental agony to the complainant and his family member. The cause of action of the instant dispute arose on dt. 27.2.2017, when the Ops disconnected the power supply to complainant’s premises. The complaint is filed praying this Forum to issue direction to Ops to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony for illegal disconnection of power supply.
3. Being Notice Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. P.K.Samal and filed joint written version into the dispute. In the written statement, it is averred that, power supply was given in the name of Sridhar Nayak, husband of the Petitioner bearing consumer No. 01310673 with a contact demand of 1 K.W. and due to pending arrear dues, the power supply was disconnected on dt. 27.2.2017 U/S56 of I.E.Act-2003 and OERL-code.It is also averred that on dt. 10.2.2017, complainant refused to receive the disconnection Notice and by order of this Forum power supply was restored on dt. 3.3.2017. It is further stated that, under Rule 100(1) (disconnection of service) of OERC-Regulation,2004, the power supply has been disconnected. The Complainant is not regular on paying the electrical dues for which an amount of Rs. 12,905/- is pending as arrear outstandings upto March-2018. In the circumstances, Ops have acted legally and complainant does not deserve any compensation as prayed for and complaint is liable to dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. Heard the Ld.Counsel for the Ops perused the documents filed into the dispute. The admitted facts of the case are that power supply was given in the name of Sridhar Nayak, husband of the complainant and Sridhar Nayak has passed away. The complainant is a domestic category of consumer under Ops bearing consumer No. 01310673. It is also admitted that an arrear outstandind is pending against the complainant bearing consumer No. 01310673. It is further admitted that, power supply has been disconnected to complainant’s premises on dt. 27.2.2017 and same has been restored by the order of this Forum.
The only point to be decided here that, as per the complaint, the Ops without giving any prior Notice disconnected the power supply to the complainant’s premises on dt. 27.2.2017 by violating the provisions of U/S-56 of I.E.Act, which leads to deficiency in service inpart of the Ops. Equally, the factual aspect of the dispute is that, there is an arrear outstanding pending against the complainant and under the Regulation 100(1) of OERC-Code-2004 (Disconnection/ Reconnection of power supply). The authorities are entitled to cut off supply of electricity to the consumer with a 15 clear days Notice. On the other hand, Ops countering the allegations, admit the disconnection and state that, the disconnection Notice dtd. 10.2.2017, while serving refused by the complainantto receive the same. Ops in support of their averment filed attested photocopy of the disputed ‘Notice’ dtd. 10.2.17. On its perusal it appears that one line-man of Ops, namely Rajendra Mohanty endorsed in the Notice that Sridhar Nayak ‘refused’ to receive the Notice. In the dispute Ops stand clarified as Notice was a personal service to bonafide consumer Sridhar Nayak, husband of the complainant and according to complainant her husband is died and complainant being a ‘widow’ filed the present dispute. But this Forum is in dark, whether Sridhar Nayak was alive on the date of service of disconnection Notice as pleaded by the Ops? If, Sridhar Nayak is died prior to dt. 10.2.2017, it is clear that Ops have tampered the ‘Notice’ by adducing the opinion of the line-man Rajendra Mohanty to save themselves from the clutches of the law. On the otherside Complainant has neither disclosed the date of death of bonafide consumer namely Sridhar Nayak, nor examined the line-man Rajendra Mohanty to verify the authenticity of service of disputed Notice. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, Ops can’t be liable for non-service of Notice to complainant as alleged, where U/R 102 (1) of OERC-Code 2004 empowers the Op- authorities to delivered Notice by hand to the person residing at the address notified to the licenses by the consumer is one of the mode of communication of Notice. Further, it is a fact that complainant has made a written representation to Op-2 (Annexure-5) which duely received by the officials. The Ops are silent regarding result of the representation dtd. 28.2.17. Hence, it will be appropriate by the Op-authority to dispose of the representation dtd. 28.2.2017 as per the law.The I.A. Misc case No. 9/17 was filed by the complainant, which arises out of the present C.C.Case was dropped on dt. 23.6.2017 for restoration of power supply. This Forum directed the Ops to restore the power supply on payment of certain amount which is subjected to adjustment of the final hearing of the case, as per the opinion of Ld.Counsel for complainant the power supply has been restored on completion of formalities. Hence, the ordered amount, if any deposited before the Ops be adjusted on the monthly energy bill of complainant.
Accordingly, the Complaint is disposed on contest without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 29th day of June,2018.
I,agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
