Orissa

Cuttak

CC/188/2022

Ranjan Kumar Dalai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer,CDD-II,TPCODL - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

 

C.C.No.188/2022

             Ranjan Kumar Dalai,

             At/PO:GatiroutPatana,

              P.S:Chauliaganj,Dist:Cuttack.           ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.       Executive Engineer CDD-II

Cuttack Electrical Division,

                 TPCODL,At-Badambadi,

                    Ps-Badambadi,Dist-Cuttack

2.        S.D.O(Electrical),

                  Jobra,TPCODL,

                  At:Jagatpur,P.S:Jagatpur,,

                 Dist:Cuttack.                                 ...Opp. Parties..

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    20.09.2022

Date of Order:  21.02.2023

 

For the complainant:            Self.

For the O.Ps      :          None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the late father of the complainant namely Gopal Dalai alongwith his three brothers Late Bhramarbar Dalai, Late Birabar Dalai and Late Judhistir Dalai had obtained power supply from the O.Pswith consumer no.02026333 in the name of the deceased father of the complainant Gopal Dalai on plot no.701 at Village: Gatirouta Patana of Cuttack district since from the year 1970.     Since Late Gopal Dalai and his three brothers had obtained the said connection jointly, Late Gopal Dalai had 1/4^th share of the arrear and is under obligation to pay that much out of the arrear electricity bill over plot no.701.  When Gopal Dalai died in the year 1992, the present complainant had applied to the Junior Engineer, KandarpurSection, Cuttack for disconnecting the power supply given in the name of his deceased father Gopal Dalai to plot no.701.  But the said disconnection was not done by the O.Ps.  After partition of the properties, the complainant came to plot no.1250 which is a homestead land and had fallen in the share of his deceased father Gopal Dalai.  The complainant Ranjan Kumar Dalai, his  two sisters namely Jyotsnarani and Sulochana and a brother Sukant Kumar Dalai were all children of Late Gopal Dalai.  After constructing a house over the plot no.1250, the complainant Ranjan Kumar Dalai had applied for a new connection of power supply to the said plot no.1250.  The said application of the complainant was denied by the O.Ps since because there was arrear dues to be paid towards consumption of electricity.  But it is the plea of the complainant that he is not responsible for the total arrear dues pertaining to plot no.701 and is only liable to pay 1/4^th of the said value of the arrear dues.  As per the verbal commitment of the Executive Engineer who had visited the spot; the complainant had paid in the month of Marh,2022 a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards full and final settlement of the arrear energy dues but no such settlement was really commenced for which on 14.4.2022 the complainant made another representation to the Executive Engineer (O.P no.1) and subsequently he also had made another representation in this regard to the S.D.O,Electricity(O.P no.2) on 30.8.2022.  When no fruitful result yielded, the complainant has filed his complaint petition before this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps to settle the old energy dues as per their commitment thereby releasing the complainant from any liability of those over plot no.701 and to pay him a sum of R.1,00,000/- towards compensation and also the O.Ps to be debar them from taking any coercive action till finalisation of the case.

Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Having not contested this case, the O.Ps were set exparte vide order dt.28.11.2022.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

          i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

          ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

          iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Point No.ii.

          Out of the three points, point no. ii being the pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case. 

          It is the contention of the complainant that when the O.Ps had physically inspected his premises, he was suggested by the O.P no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards full and final settlement of the arrear energy dues over plot no.701 where the energy connection was obtained by the late father of the complainant alongwith his three deceased brothers.  Obeying to such verbal commitment of the O.P no.1 he had paid the said amount of Rs.20,000/- on 21.3.22 but subsequently when there was no such settlement, he had represented to the O.Ps on 14.4.2022 and on  30.8.22.  The complainant has stated that after partition among his father and the brothers of hisfather he had constructed his new house over plot no.1250 which had fallen in the share of his late father Gopal Dalai.  He claims that he is liable for 1/4^th of the energy arrear dues only.  He admits that his father and the brother of his father had jointly obtained electric connection since from the year 1970 over plot no.701 at Village:Gatirouta Patana of Cuttack district.  This Commission not being a civil court cannot distinguish and justify the liability of the legal heirs and successors of Late Gopal Dalai and his brothers.  Moreso, there is no document put forth by the complainant nor any cogent evidence is led by the complainant to convince this Commission that infact there was a valid partition amongst Gopala Dalai and his brothers by virtue of which the present complainant has constructed his house over plot no.1250 and that he is liable for 1/4^th of the arrear energy dues as claimed by him.  There is also no document produced to show that theO.Ps had agreed to receive a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards full and final settlement of the arrear energy dues accruing and pending over plot no.701 at Village;Gatirouta Patana of district Cuttack.  Thus, this Commission cannot hold the O.Ps to be responsible and to be deficient in their service by not agreeing to such proposal of the complainant here in this case.  Accordingly, this point goes in favour of the O.Ps as because this Commission finds no deficiency in service on their part.

Pointsno.i& iii.

          From the discussions as made above, it is held that the case of the complainant is not maintainable andthe complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

 

                                                          ORDER

          Case is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

             Order pronounced in the open court on the 21^st day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                     

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

         

 

                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                 Member