Orissa

Rayagada

CC/33/2018

K.Dharama Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer, Electridal - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 24/ 2018.                                                       Date.  .18.  01. 2020.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                  President.

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                 Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                            Member.

 

Surya Narayana Pattajoshi,Aged 45 years,

S/o Sri Narasingh Pattajoshi

CON A/C No.311102200118.

Opp.Umashankar Theatre.Rayagada ……………………………… Complainant/

 

Vs.

1. Executive Engineer (Electrical)

2. S.D.O. (Electrical)

3. Junior Engineer.

(All are of south Co. Rayagada) .                                           … Opposite Parties

 

JUDGEMENT

 

 The  factual matrix of the case is that  the complainant for his livelihood has been running a betelnut/pakoda shop at Umashankar Line,Rayagada  having  electric connection with consumer No . 311102200118 under the O.P.s and the bills on actual consumption of the Electricity were generally limited to less than Rs.200/- till October,2014 but  owing to mischief of meter reading/Billing boys of the O.P.s the meter though was running correctly was shown as  defective and an average assessment were made which was some 7 to 8 times more than the actual consumption. Hence, though he represented many times to the O.P.s literally and personally, the O.P.s neither cared to rectify the bills or take any other action to disprove the authenticity of the claim of the complainant. Now, on dt. 21.02.2018, while the Complainant was out of the town, with out any prior notice, they disconnected the power supply, to the great inconvenience of the Complainant.  hence the Complainant filed a Complaint before this forum for redressal of his grievances interalia to other remedies and allow the complaint with cost and compensation alongwith directions to the O Ps to issue  rectified bill on actual assessment as per the provisions so as to enable him to pay off the dues.

02.     The Complainant has filed the copies of representations,Bills,Receipts of Ops  and other documents etc, Considered.

03.     The Forum considering the Complaint, the accompanied documents in support of it and having heard from the Complainant at length, found there is prima facie deficiency in service and  admitted the Complaint and notice u/s 13(2)(a) of the Act 68 of 1986 for filing of counter by O.P.s.

 

04.     Upon  Notice,however,the O.P.s abstained themselves from countering the Complaint and did not  appear before the forum to participate in the hearing, hence they were set exparte, and the case was heard in their  absence, as per provisions of the Act.

05.     Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

06.    This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                      FINDINGS.

07.     Undisputedly the complainant had availed the utility service to his shop room vide electrical consumer No. 311102200118. As per submission of the Complainant, the bills were all normal as per actual consumption till October,2014, but in November 2014 the bill read as 8143 and in December 2014 it read 8149. The Complainant submits that, the reading boy actually did not take reading in these two months at all. In On March,2015 an another boy came,took the reading and it was 8231 units and status of the meter shown to be defective. And then after the meter is shown all defective till July 2015. Hence there was an average billing since November 2014 to July 2015 till eight months.

08.     The Complainant submitted us the billing pattern derived from the website of South Co in respect of the Consumer holding which confirms of the fact that, the billing was made averagely for 72 units of consumption per month.

09.     We have perused the bill details, which shows that, the monthly billing was only 20 to 30 units averagesly on actual consumption till October 2014. The bills were made on actual basis. That makes us presume that, the bills were made on actual consumption of the electricity. It can be seen that, at shop was found locked at the time of reading even after a new meter was fixed to the holding after the shop alongwith the electrical appratus burnt down in june 2015. It(the actual consumption) was total 126 units from July 2015 to  December 2015.

10.     The Complainant submits that, he had orally requested the J.E. i.e. the O.P.No. 3 to rectify the bill so as to enable him to clear off the outstanding bills. But when he did not respond the Complainant submitted an application on dt. 02.11.2015 vide registered post, the acknowledgement and copy of the application of which has been submitted by the Complainant as evidence.

11.     Again on dt.21.10.2017 the complainant submitted another application to the O.P. 3 for the same cause of action to rectify the bill and expunge the DPS  till to that date but in vain. The copy of the letter with postal receipt is submitted by the complainant is taken as evidence in support of the contention.

12.     Reg. 3 of  The Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (Licensees’ standards of Performance  Regulation 2004  has prescribed certain standards of handling the Complaints in regards to the meter and bills of the Consumers. Regulations has prescribed certain guaranteed services under Schedule -1  and Reg. 5 has prescribed compensation which are listed in Schedule –III. Schedule I in serial No.  2.3 of the table mandates the service relates to the defects in meter within 7 days and defective meter shall be replaced within 30 days. In Schedule-V-5.1 the licensees are required to resolve the Complaint within 30 days hence receipt of Complaint on regards to bills.And  if the Complaint on bill is not resolved within Thirty days, Schedule III prescribes an automatic penalty of Rs.50/- to be credited to the account of consumer.

13.     We could not find nor we are appraised if any measures have been taken by the Licensee till todayon the complaint of the Complainant, rather even after the interim order of this Forum u/s 13(3)(B) on dt. 11.09.2017 to restore the electricity supply to the consumer holding of the Complainant, they in sheer disobedience and contempt of the order of this forum, again disconnected  on dt. 17.02.2018 which shows their callous attitude towards the guaranteed standard of performance to be delivered to the consumers, rather arbitrariness and high handedness in collecting the bills, through coercive and forceful action.

14.     The First Complaint of the Complainant was made on dt. 02.11.2015 vide postal acknowledgement No. EO643113315IN addressed to the O.P.1 and the copy of the Complaint again received by the J.E. i.e the O.P.3 through Sushant Kumar Sethi, on dt. 05.11.2015. If 45 days in consonance to the Reg. 4, 5 , 6 of OERC (Standard of performance) 2004 is excluded,1482 days have been passed and an amount of Rs.74,100/- as  fine of Rs. 50/- Per Day till the date of this order accrues to the account of the consumer, which the O.P.s would be bound to pay.

15.     Now it has became a matter of great concern that, the  corporate bodies rendering public utilities, instead of redressing or evolving procedures’ to redress the genuine and legal claims of its subjects through their internal procedures , are relegating to unnecessary litigations, instead of imposing themselves as responsible defaulters., but under assumption of a right to clash vested in them, and that all claims against them should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and aught up to the law court of the land. It is not for the reason that the claims are illegal but, to their instinctive tendency to protect themselves against their own wrongs, misfeasance, illegalities and incapacity of decision taking, and in an welfare state it should be remembered that, every law and provisions are meant for the public and welfare of the public and public authorities are under strict code of law to protect the interests of the public. The O.P.s providing Utility services enjoys the status of  quasi state functionaries and officers acting as such as public servant and enjoys the immunity of the state authorities. Even then who contravenes the law in the torturous activity inflicting pain to the genuine consumers , they are remained no more state functionaries but offenders and law does  not provide any immunity for tortuous acts of these offenders.

16.     However, now who shall pay the compensation, should it be realised from those who were responsible for it ? He who is responsible for it must suffer it. The jurisdiction and power of the courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded on the principle as observed by Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome13 that, an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law'

17.     We are undoubtedly of the opinion that, the O.P.s  has been deficient in service, it was never desirable that, the Consumer who enjoys the benefit of the utility should not pay for it, but the law provides that, even the authorities providing such utility in addition to their authority for enforcement of the collection of the bills, they should render service. When they fails, even bonafide, yet rules of law shall subsist.

18.     However, considering the position of the O.P.s we instead of allowing the whole amount of compensation as calculated in the preceding paragraphs, allow the complaint as infra:

                                                            ORDER.

1. The Opp Parties , shall hereby pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation to the complainant, besides the OPP.Parties shall also be  liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) as cost of litigation to the complainant.

 

2. Any claim of D.P.S. in respect to the bills aginst  consumer No. 311102200118 standing to the date of this order is hereby quashed.

 

3. The amount of cost and compensaton in para ( i ) above shall be adjusted in the consumptions bills ( Present and Future) and the adjusted bill shall be presented to the Complainant  by the O.P.s within thirty days of this order.

 

Any deviation to the compliance of this order shall render the parties with liberty to file proceeding under section 25 and 27 of the C.P.Act-1986.

           

           

The  Interim order passed on Dt. 11.09.2017 and   22.2.2018  by this forum   stands  vacated.

Copies of the order be served on the parties  concerned as per rule.

Dictated and corrected by me.

Pronounced in the open forum this the day of 18^th January, 2020.

 

MEMBER.                              MEMBER.                                          PRESIDENT.