Orissa

Debagarh

CC/21/2018

Sanjukta Dwibedy, W/O-Bimal Dwibedy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer, Electrical, Deogarh - Opp.Party(s)

S. Mishra & S. K. Biswal

17 Sep 2021

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF DISRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH          

C.C Case No-   21/2018

Present-        Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Sanjukta Dwibedy.

W/O-Bimal Dwibedy,

R/O-Vill-Purnagarh,

PS/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                                                              ….        Complainant.

                                                                                                -Versus-

1. Executive Engineer,

         Deogarh Electrical, WESCO,

          At/P.O/P.S /Dist-Deogarh.

2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Deogarh,

     WESCO, At/P.O/P.S /Dist-Deogarh.

3.  Junior Engineer, Lift Irrigation, Deogarh,   At-Kacheri Chowk, PO/PS/Dist-Deogarh.               …. O.Ps.                                  

            Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant           :- Sri. S.Mishra, Advocate,Deogarh.
2. For the O.P-1&2                   :-Sri. D.K. Guru & Associate, Advocate, Deogarh.
3. For the O.P-3                        :-None.

DATE OF HEARING: 13.08.2021, DATE OF ORDER: 17.09.2021.

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President-Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant has availed an electric connection in her name in October-2001 vide consumer no- 414104080116 for domestic use. She has purchased the house from one Binod Bihari Dash in the year 1999 and the premises was supplied with electric connection (commercial purpose) in the name of the O.P-3 who was running an office in the said premises. Thereafter the power supply was changed in the year 2001 in her name for domestic purpose as per the application dtd. 24.06.2000. On 31^st October 1999 the office of the O.P 3 was shifted to some other place and the arrear dues were pending against him. The O.P-3 wrote a letter  on dtd. 25.07.2002 vide letter no- 95 to the O.P-2 to regularise the dues and undertake to pay the arrear dues by his department, but no step was taken by the O.P-1 & 2 rather they regularly demand the payment of arrear from the Complainant through their  Pleader. The arrear was for Rs. 1,23,932/- which was protested by the Complainant. The O.P-3 was informed by the Complainant to make payment of the arrear but he remained deaf ear to her. For all the inactivity by the O.Ps the Complainant is facing financial loss and harassment and decided to seek relief from this Commission. But according to the Advocate for the O.P-1 & 2 the Complainant is a consumer vide no- 4141-0413-0437 instead of the consumer No-4141-0408-0116 which was commenced from January-1990. Though the O.P-3 was agreed to clear all the outstanding dues he did not paid the same  for which it was shown as arrear against his consumer number hence the liability was fixed on the Complainant to pay the outstanding dues of the previous owner(O.P-3) and the Complainant being the subsequent purchaser. The Complainant was not a regular payer of electric bill raised by the utility hence the arrear raised to a tune of Rs. 1,11,854/- as on July 2018 and the supply was availed from July 2000. The opening balance of the arrear was Rs. 39,303.45 and the Complainant has paid Rs. 1,02,077.91 up to June 2018. As the Complainant is liable to pay the dues of the previous owner as per the OERC Regulation act 2004 in case of transfer of ownership of the premises the subsequent owner has to pay the arrear dues. Again it is stated that the Complainant has to avail no due certificate from the Utility  before purchasing the said house, as per the provision of Regulation 10(ii) of OERC supply code and as no such document the complainant petition is liable to be dismissed. The onus of proof of change of ownership is lies with the Complainant and she has to prove it. The arrear dues have been accumulated due to regular non payment of the Complainant. Again the O.Ps have not received any payment from the Complainant as regards the arrear electricity dues in manner as prescribed under said Regulation 91 of the Supply Code,2004. Hence the O.Ps are not liable to be penalised as they have not caused any deficiency in service to the Complainant.

            The O.P.3 despite of service of notice he did not bother to appear before this commission thus challenging the allegation made by the commission. So taken in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR ODL CASE”, this commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-3 as ex-parte in this case. Hence, hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and material available in the record we inferred that in terms of provisions of Regulation 10(ii) & (iv) of the OERC Supply Code,2004, if there are electricity dues against previous owner or occupants of the premises who transfers the premises to a new owner or occupant, the new owner or occupant applying for a fresh electricity connection can be compelled by the distribution company to pay the arrears of electricity dues of the previous owner or occupant and the distribution company can refuse to supply electricity to the premises on account of such non-payment. But in this case the O.P-1 & 2 has violated their own terms and conditions and provided electric connection in the name of the Complainant in the month of October-2001 without receiving the arrear dues. The O.P-1 & 2 has also admitted the fact in their written statements that they have not received any payment from the Complainant as regards the arrear electricity dues in manner as prescribed under said Regulation 91 of the Supply Code, 2004. Again the O.P-1 & 2 disputed the ownership of the Complainant relating to the said premises, still transferred the electric connection in her name which is self contradictory. Further there is a mismatch in the consumer no. allotted to the Complainant as in the electric bill supplied to the O.P-3, the consumer no. is written as 4141-0408-0116 which was transferred in the name of the Complainant, but in the payment notice served by the Advocate on dtd 28.10.2017  reflects the Consumer No- as  4141-0403-1078 and the billing and collection details issued to the Complainant contains a different consumer no. as 4141-0413-0437 which are confusing. In this case the O.P-3 on  dtd. 25.07.2000 informed the O.P-2 & 3 that he is shifting the office to some other place and had asked for a final bill for payment up to 31.10.1999. The O.p-3 has also given consent in writing, where it is stated that, his department will pay the arrears dues and requested the O.P-1 & 2 to resume the power supply to the house of the Complainant.  Hence the O.P-2 & 3 were responsible to provide final bill and collect the same from the O.P-3 accordingly. In absence of the consent letter from OP-3, the O.P-1 & 2 would have the liberty to collect the dues of erstwhile occupier from the present occupier (Complainant) of the premises. Again it is the duty of the O.P-3 to pay the outstanding electric dues accrued on him before leaving the premises of the Complainant and due to non–payment, the Complainant being a lady became harassed by the O.P-3 as well as the O.P-1 & 2. Hence the O.Ps has committed Deficiency in providing Service to the complainant and we order as under:-

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to collect the arrear dues from the O.P-3 lying outstanding in his name up to 31.10.1999. Further O.P-1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation for mental pain and agony caused to the Complainant. The O.P-3 is directed to pay the arrear bill lying outstanding against him to the O.P-1 & 2. Further the O.P-3 to pay Rs.70,000/-along with Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days from receipt of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 17^th day of September-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

 

I agree,                                                        

 

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             by me.              

 

              PRESIDENT