Orissa

Jajapur

CC/6/2015

Bishnu Charan Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer NESCO,Jajpur - Opp.Party(s)

Kishore Chandra Dash

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                                      Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                                      2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                      3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

Dated the 25^th day of April,2016.

C. C. Case No.06 of 2015

Bishnu charan Nayak, S/O Late  Bhagabat Nayak

Vil/ P.O.l- Kantipur, P.S- Binjharpur, Dist.Jajpur.                                          …………..Complainant.          

                                   (Versus)                                                                

1. Executive Engineer, NESCO,Jajpur.At/P.O/Dist.Jajpur.

2. S.D.O,Electrical,NESCO,Binjharpur Sub-division,At/P.O.Mansada,

P.S.Binjharpur, Dist.Jajpur.

3.J.E,Electrical –cum-Jr.Manager,Electrical ,Madhusudanpur

 At/P.O. Madhusudanpur ,P.S.Binjharpur ,Dist.Jajpur.                       …………………………Opp.Parties.

                                                                                                               

For the Complainant:                                     Sri K . Ch. Das, M. K. Nath, Advocates.

For the Opp. Parties :                                     Self.  

 

                                                                             Date of order    : 25.04.2016.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , LADY  MEMBER

Deficiency in service is the grievance of the complainant.

                        Briefly stated, the facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant is a domestic consumer under the O.Ps. bearing consumer No.32551D. The O.Ps gave wrong and illegal bills to the complainant for which the complainant filed C.C.Case No.03/2010 in this Forum for deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The Forum decided the case No.03/2010  and  ordered that :-

“ The dispute is disposed of accordingly. The O.Ps. are directed to revise the bill after taking 3 months meter reading from the meter which has been installed by the  O.Ps. in case the meter is OK and in case the present meter is defective such steps to revise the bill shall be taken by the O.Ps. after installing a correct meter. The O.Ps. are directed to send the revised bill by Regd. Post.”

                        The O.Ps. have not complied the forum’s orer till today. The meter reader some times have given bills on actual consumption basis. The complainant had terndered the bill amount to the O.Ps but O.Ps. did not accept the bill amount on each month. The complainant had send the monthly bill by money order which is not accepted by the O.Ps. The complainant also had given one application to the O.P.no.2 by Regd. Post which was refused by the O.P.no.2. The O.Ps. on 13.01.15 without any previous notice have disconnected  the power supply from the house of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant alleging the above facts has filed the C.C.Case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service .

                        On being noticed the O.Ps. have appeared through O.P.no.2 and filed their written version. In the written version it is pleaded that :

That ,in response to the order of Hon’ble President,DCDRF,against C.D.Case No.03 of 2010 to the petitioners bill was revised by the competent authority for Rs.37,265.27.

                        In this regard the conumser was also intimated vide T.O letter No.677(3) dt.24.08.13 along with disconnection notice . But the complainant did not receive the same. However, the revised amount of Rs.37,265.27 was also deducted from the consumer bill during the billing period Aug’2013  inspite of his non payment of rest arrear electricity dues.

                        After revision of the disputed bill the complainant is not paying any energy bill. Our office was surprised to know that his power supply has been disconnected, though our department has not taken any action on disconnection to his premises. However, our department is authorized to disconnect his power supply as one disconnection notice has already been issued to him at the time of revision of bill. Further one disconnection notice was issued to him vide T.O letter No.238. dt.18.02.15. The complainant /petitioner be directed to pay the arrear dues. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the C.C.Case is liable to be dismissed.

                        On the date of hearing we have heard arguments from both sides. Perused the record in detail and documents available on record.

                        The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the O.Ps. have failed to comply the order passed in C.C.Case No.03 of 2010 . The complainant could not know his revised bill and could not pay the electric dues . More over the complainant had paid the electric dues by M.O. The complainant had also send a Regd. Letter to the O.P.no.2 which was refused by O.P.no.2 which amounts to deficiency in service and accordingly the O.P. should be penalized.

                        The O.P.no.2 himself argued on behalf of the O.Ps. It is argued by the O.P.no.2 that as per the order of the  Hon’ble Forum the bill of the complainant was revised and a sum of Rs.37265.27 was deducted in the bill of August-13 which is within the knowledge of the complainant but the complainant failed to discharge his duties. The complainant has filed the zerox copy of the electric bill of August which  itself reveas l that a sum of Rs.37265.27 was deducted from the bill of the complainant. It was argued that the learned Forum’s   intention to supply the revised bill the complainant by Regd. Notice is nothing but to bring to the knowledge of the complainant what amount was revised and what is to be paid by the complainant. The bill for the month of August-13 was given to the complainant and the complainant filed the zerox copy which is in the case record. Hence the main intention of learned forum is fulfilled. There is no need further to issue the revised amount to the complainant by Regd. Post . More over the office issued a letter  regarding the revision which was not received by the complainant. The complainant without paying the arrears has filed this dispute on flimsy grounds.

                        The complainant alleged that he did not receive the bills in time. As per 93(11) of the O.E.R.C Code in case the consumer did not receive the bill it is obligatory on the part of consumer  to approach the engineer and collect a duplicate bill. But in this case the complainant never approached for the duplicate bill.

                        Further the complainant alleged that though the complainant used to send the payment by M.O but the O.P did not accept the payment. As per the provisions 93(1) a of the O.E.R.C code there is no provision to accept the payment through M.O. The complainant can also pay his dues through the Jana Subidha Kendra or the out let opened by the NESCO at Jajpur. The O.P.no.2  prayed to direct the complainant to pay the dues.

                        It is argued by the O.P.no.2 that the this O.P.no.2 refused to receive the Regd.letter .In the letter there is no mention of case or the consumer No. of the complainant So O.P.no.2 do not know the person personally sending the Regd. Letter / personally letter . No purpose of written. Hence he refused the same and there is no deficiency in refusal to receive the Regd. Letter.

                        We have verified the provisions of O.E.R.C Code, the ledger copy of the complainant, the zerox copy of bill of the complainant for the month of August-13 and we are in agreement with the arguments done / placed by O.P.no.2 . Non receipt of Regd. Letter does not amount to deficiency in service.

                        Hence, in view of the aforesaid analysis the C.C.Case is dismissed against the O.Ps. but without any costs.                  

O R D E R

                        In the result the C. C. Case is dismissed against the O.Ps. on contest. The complainant is directed to pay the revised arrear electric dues i.e 20,9,64.69 within 15 days of receipt of this order . The complainant is also directed to pay all the outstanding dues of the O.ps. within 3 months of receipt of the order. The complainant in case, failed to receive the bill he will approach  by writing the concerned S.D.O for issuance of duplicate Electric bill as per section 13(II) of the O.E.R.C Code and the S.D.O will provide the duplicate Electric bill by Regd. Post. The complainant will pay the dues by cash depositing the same in the counter of the O.Ps. ‘or’ by local  cheque, bank draft, banker’s cheque as per provisions of Section-93.1(a) of the O.E.R.C Code.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th day of April ,2016. under my hand and seal of the Forum.