DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint  No. 06 of 2020.

                                                                                                                                    Date of hearing :   25.04.2023.

                                                                                                                                     Date of order     :    08.05.2023.

Dated the 08^th May, 2023.

Sri Nanda Kishore Panigrahi,S/o:- Late ArjunPanigrahi,

Vill/Po:-Sriganga, P.S:- Dhusuri, Dist:-Bhadrak.

                                                                 …………..  Complainant.

                               -:Versus:-

• Executive Engineer, (NESCO), Bhadrak,

         Dist:-Bhadrak.

• Superintendent of Engineer (NESCO)

Bhadrak, Dist:-Bhadrak.

• Assistant Engineer (NESCO), Dhamnagar,  At/Po/PS:-Dhamnagar,Dist:- Bhadrak.
• The Junior Engineer (Arnapal),

          Asurali Section, Dist:-Bhadrak.

                                                         .…………Opposite parties.

P R E S E N T S.

 1. Shri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,

 2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.

Counsels appeared for the parties.

Counsel For Complainant          :  Sri H. Mohanty, Advocate & Others,

Counsel For the Opp. Parties     : Smt. GayatriPradhan, Dy. Manager (Legal).

J U D G M E N T.

SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.

In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

A fact of the case is that, the petitioner had taken one Electric connection for domestic purpose from electric department under Arnapal J.E. but subsequently converted to commercial for bettle shop.  Being a regular customer & consumer of electric department paid the electricity bill & consume the electricity from the year 1996 till date.  The petitioner is a regular customer of electric department & paid the bill from time to time. But NESCO Junior Engineer (Section Officer) staff wrongly mentioned energy bill & did not rectify the bill amount and later on the NESCO Section Office Staff (Asurali junior Engineer Office) agree to rectify the wrong bill amount mentioned in bill from 2008 to 2019 and reduced the wrongly mentioned bill amount by Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand).  The O.P. No.4 (Section Officer) staff fail to take proper meter reading of the petitioner & the petitioner face unnecessary headache & irreparable loss.  Due to O.Ps illegal activities & disconnection of the electric lines of the petitioner house on dt.06.07.2019 & petitioner is suffering.  The petitioner has requested the O.Ps for correction of bills from 1996.  The staff of O.P. No.4 agree to work out the bill totally but later on demand Rs.20,000/- as tips & gratifications from the petitioner.

The Opp. Parties state that, the case is not maintainable in the eyes of law as it is barred by law of limitation U/s 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  O.Ps rely on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in a case between, National Bureau of Plant genetic Vr. North Delhi Power Ltd.& Anr. On 15^thDecember, 2015, wherein it was held that, period of limitation for filing a consumer complaint in a Consumer Forum is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  Section 24-A (2), however, confers a right upon the Consumer Forum to condone the delay in filing of consumer complaint, if sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within time is shown.  O.Ps also rely on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in a case between Sanjay Singh Vs. Baby Chandana & Ors. On 8 September, 2015, wherein it was decided that, the cause of action once accrued cannot be extended by a party by just writing demand letters/legal notice.  The averments made in complaint petition are not within the official knowledge of the O.Ps so the O.Ps cannot reply on this averment.  The averment made in complaint petition is correct to the extent that the complaint initially was a domestic consumer & later became commercial user of electricity due to hardware & sanitary shop.  Rests of the averments are not correct as narrated by the complaint.  Complainant has not filled any official trade license from the competent authority regarding running of bettle shop.  It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is regular defaulter of electricity dues as per the computerized bill data maintained by the O.Ps.  The allegations made by the complainant is highly imaginary & baseless.  Complainant has not mentioned in which date he visited the office of the J.E. Arnapal& moreover he has not filed any documentary proof regarding assurance for rectification of the bill.  Complainant has failed to mention the dates when the O.Ps failed to take meter reading.  Complainant has not raised any grievance on the functioning & meter reading before the O.Ps.  The NESCO Utility has engaged an agency to take the meter reading & several meters were changed.  Lastly a new meter bearing No. NS36032 was installed in the premises of the consumer in the month of December 2015.  Complainant did not raise any objection in his arrear bill not now after more than 4 years  the complainant is raising the old issue which is time barred as per section 24-A of the C.P. Act, 1986.  It is pertinent to mention here that the O.Ps have not committed any illegality in supplying electricity & preparation of the bills.  O.Ps have not disconnected the electricity supply on 06.07.2019.  Complainant has  not visited the office of the O.Ps for which he has given incorrect address in the cause title of the complaint petition.  O.P. No.3 has been incorrectly mentioned SDO Dhamnagar, whereas the correct address is SDO Asurali.  O.Ps only came to know about the fact only after getting the notice/summon from the learned Forum & after scrutiny of the bill ledger the O.P. No.3 revised the bills & after revision of the bills an amount of Rs.10,785/- withdrawn from the arrear bills of the complainant.  After the bill revision, an amount of Rs.34,026/- is still lying as arrear dues.  Complainant has not mentioned in which way the O.Ps intentionally & arbitrarily harassed the complainant.  Complainant has not mentioned the names of the O.Ps or any staff of the O.P. who demanded gratification for correction of the bill.  For the first time complainant has raised the issue of revision of bill & demand of illegal gratification.  The complaint petition is incomplete as the copy bearing official seal of the learned Forum received by the O.Ps is left blank and in complete.  It is pertinent to mention here that the initially the consumer complaint was 0.5 K.W. & later basing on his commercial consumption his load was enhanced to 1 K.W.  Again on 07.02.2020 as per joint verification of the O.P. No.3 & 4 in presence of the complainant the consumer complaint within 1 K.W. loan & the meter was used without any seal.  The said report is filed herewith.  It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has failed to mention the difficulties& what irreparable loss was caused to him despite he is regular defaulter of payment of electricity bills. The complainant prayed for cannot be granted in this proceeding as the complainant has demanded waiver of all the electricity dues which he has consumed for commercial purpose.  Complainant has intentionally mentioned the address of the O.P. No.3 as Dhamnagar but the correct address in the office of the SDO, Asurali, NESCO Utility.  This intentional admission proves that the complainant never visited the office of the O.Ps regarding redressal of his grievance as claimed by him in the complaint petition.  O.Ps havefiled another petition for deletion of O.P. No.1 & 2 as miss joinder of O.P. & another petition to hear the case on the point of limitation.  Cases filed by the complainant being devoid of any merit & without any cause of action be dismissed with cost.

Having heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and after carefully considering the rival contention of belligerent parties, this Commission finds it proper to frame the following issues to settle the consumer complaint:-

• Whether the complaint has been filed within limitation?  
• Whether these OPs have billed for a period when there was no energy supply?
• Whether these OPs have revised the bills?
• Whether OPs have committed deficiency in providing service which caused mental harassment to the complainant?
• If so then to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Issue No.1,2 &3 are taken together and answered hereinafter. The complainant is asking for a revision of his energy bills from 1996. This well beyond the limitation period of 2 years. However, from the documents filed by both these parties it is clear that these OPs have revised the bill @ 20 units per month from January 2002 to October 2009 and have withdrawn an amount of Rs. 10,785/- from the arrear bills. Further, it is evident from the documents filed that from August 2011 to November 2015, these OPs have not charged as when there was no energy supply. So, all these 3 issues are answered against the complainant.

So far as the Issue No.4 is concerned the complainant failed prove that these OPs have committed deficiency in service. The complainant also failed to prove that his supply was disconnected by these OPs on 06/07/2019. Had the complainant visited the office of the OP No.3 then he would have given correct address of the OP No.3 in the cause title. Similarly, the demand of Rs. 20,000/- as gratification seems as a wild allegation without any legs to stand. So, this issue is also answered against the complainant.

Under these circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any relief from this commission.

O R D E R.

In the result complaint be and same is dismissed. No cost to any party.

This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 08^th day of May 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.