MR. BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER:-       

                This present C.C.Case No. 22/2021 is taken up today for order. The Ops are sufficiently noticed on dt. 07.05.2022, Ld. Counsel on behalf of SDO TPCODL filed Vakaltnama but not taken any steps and not filed written version till date. The case posted to 26 occasions. We can’t prejudice the Complainant again by pending his grievances for further period, where there is a madate to dispose the case within 90 days in the C.P.Act, 2019, without delay we are setting the Op ex-parte & decide case in hand.

                 Complainant for running a restaurant made agreement with the house owner & annexed the house agreement with one Mahesh Agarawalla on dt. 14.02.2020 for three years and extendable on conditions for maintaining his livelihood. Prakash Gupta the original consumer let out to Babaji Behera both are dead. Further the present shop house not related to previous electric supply bill in deceased consumer name. The Complainant’s father name Sankarshan Behera and Complainant one of the legal heir as per certificate of Tahasildar, Kendrapara. The No. 01060230 stands in deceased name Babaji Behera. Babaji Behera neither Complainant’s father, grandfather nor brother why he shall pay the arrear dues for which benefit enjoyed by someone else. The Ops if wants to realise arrear bill amount they should gone through the provision of Chapter-X OERC Regulation. Recovery of electricity charges and interest of billing 96. Recovery of arrears:- TPCODL Engineer(SDO) shall be entitled to take recourse to proceeding under the Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1962 for realization of the licensee’s dues if such dues are treated as Public demand.

                  When the Complainant neither connected to such consumer connection not the shop room connected to such arrear of dues & no way connected as per the legal heir certificate given in 2018 by the competent authority then the Corporate licensee should not pressed the unemployed person who wanted to open a restaurant for maintaining his livelihood. It is the right of a person to get electricity connection under the policy for which Electric Act, 2003 legislated. The Ops are prejudicing the Complainant by demanding Rs. 3,93,597/- arrear dues where he had no connection with the consumer number & also consumer name and the shop house, those enjoyed electricity. The Ops cleverly remained out of Commission by non-filing of written version even not countered any point & on other side demanding unfair arrear amount forcefully for which the Ops are liable for unfair trade and are liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

                                          O R D E R

                     It is directed that the Ops shall supply electricity to the shop house premises of the Complainant within one month and also prepare bill as per actual consumption of electricity by the Complainant from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Ops are liable to pay Rs. 200/- per day to the Complainant & also liable for execution proceeding under C.P.Act, 2019. The C.C.Case is allowed.

                      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