Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: Self
For the O.Ps : Shri Ashok Kumar Pattnaik,Advocate
JUDGMENT
Shri A.K.Patra,President
The facts of the complaint in brief are that, the complainant is a consumer of Opposite Parties vide Consumer No.903612120209 and paying all the electric bill amount as per the meter reading of the Opposite Parties .In the bill dated 13.08.2021 and 24.09.2021 there was no arrear amount but the Opposite Parties wrongly claimed arrear amount in the bill dt.18.11.2021 i.e Rs.2487.30/- ,in the bill dt. 8.1.2022 i.e Rs.3160.36 /- and in the bill dt.9.2.2022 i.e Rs.1686.26/- though the complainant has been paying the bill regularly and because the complainant is paying the bill amount regularly , the arrear claimed by the Ops are false and fabricated for which it is liable to be waived as per law. It is contended that, the complainant went to the office of the Opposite Parties several times for revision of the bills but the opposite party did not listen to the grievance of the complainant. Hence this complainant.
The complainant prayed for on order directing the ops to waive the arrear amount Rs.2487.30 vide bill dt.18.11.21,Rs.3160.36 vide bill dt.8.1.2022, and Rs.1686.26 vide bill dt.09.02.2022 and further prayed to direct the Opp.Parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the sufferings under gone by the complainant due to the said wrong bill issued to him by the Opp.Party.
Being notice the O.Ps appeared through Learned Counsel Shri Ashok Kumar Pattnaik but failed to file their written version within the stipulated period as prescribed under C. P. Act 2019 .However the Op s are allowed to take part in the further preceding/hearing of this case . But did not turn up .
Here the doctrine of non –traverse will rightly applicable as non of the allegation made by the complainant are ever disputed or traversed by the O.P in any manner .The opposite party have neither disputed nor produce any evidence contrary to the averment of the complainant which in terms is a clear admission of facts of the complaint and the same need not proved as per Sec 58 of Indian evidence Act. Law is well settled that every allegation of facts in the complaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication , or stated to be admitted in the pleading of the O.P shall be taken to be admitted accept as against a person disability . Where the Op has not filed a pleading it shall be law full for the court to pronounced judgment on the basic of the fact contend in the plaint except as against the person under a disability (Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in M.Venkataramana Hebbar Vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Others, Lohia Properties (P) Ltd Vs. Atmaram Kumar).
Perused the material available on record. Complainant has alleged negligence & deficiency of service on the part of Ops for their erroneous bill dt.18.11.21 for an arrears of Rs.2487.30, bill dt. dt.8.1.2022 for an arrear of Rs.3160.36, and bill dt.09.02.2022 for an arrears of Rs.1686.26.
As per Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
Here in this case ,to substantiate his case the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit but due to absence of the Opposite Parities on the date o fixed for hearing the copy of said affidavit evidence could not be served ,however taken into the record.
Perused the material available on record. The complainant present and filed his evidence on affidavit contents of which are corroborate with the averment of the complainant petition hence, the complainant has proved his case. He also proved the alleged bill dt.18.11.21, dt.8.1.2022, and dt.09.02.2022 annexed with his complaint petition.
In the light of above said discussion and settled principle of law and on being proved the allegation made against the O.Ps, we are of the considered view that, there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P towards the complainant for issuing of wrong bill calming arrear of Rs.2487.30 in the bill dt.18.11.21, Rs.3160.36 in the bill dt.8.1.2022, and Rs.1686.26 in the bill dt.09.02.2022 which certainly caused financial hardship and mental agony to the complainant as such he is entitle to be compensated by the O.Ps and the said arrear as claimed the aforesaid bill is to be waived . However the claim of the complainant is of higher side as such allowed in part. Hence it is order.
ORDER
The O.Ps are directed to waive out deduct the arrear amount of Rs.2487.30 in the bill dt.18.11.21,Rs.3160.36 in the bill dt.8.1.2022, and Rs.1686.26 in the bill dt.09.02.2022 and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards mental agony and financial hardship suffered due to negligence & deficient service on their part towards the complainant .
The Ops is further directed to comply the order within four weeks from the date of received of this order failing which the Ops are liable to pay Rs 500/-per day to the complainant till compliance of this order. This consumer Complain is partly allowed in above terms against Ops ex-parte. Pending application if any is also stands disposed off.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sd/-
President
I agree.
Sd/-
Member
Pronounced in open Commission today on this 20th April, 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost .The judgment be uploaded forth with on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
