Orissa

Cuttak

CC/130/2018

Kabita Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer,CESU - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra & associates

24 May 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                                   C.C.No.130/2018

Kabiata Das,

D/O:Late Rabin Chandra Das,

At:Peyton Sahi,Seminar Road,

P.O:Buxibazar,PS:Purighat,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                              ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Executive Engineer,C.D.D-1,Ranihat,Cuttack

 

2.         Junior Engineer-cum-Junior Manager (Elect.),

                             Tinikonia Bagicha,Annapurna Electrical Section,

CESU,Cuttack.

 

3.        S.D.O(Electrical) Division,

CESU,Bijupattnaik Chhak,Cuttack.... Opp. Parties.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    26.12.2018

Date of Order:  24.05.2022

 

For the complainant:          Ms. B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps       :                 Mr. A.K.Nath,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

 

            The case record is put up today for orders.

The case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition is that Late Umesh Chandra Das had four sons who are Nabin,Bijan,Bipin and Rabin.  Rabin had two sons and a daughter namely Sanjiv,Rajiv & Kabita Das. The complainant in this case is the said Kabaita Das.  Rajiv had died leaving behind his widow Monalisha Das.  The said common ancestor Umesh Chandra Das was provided with electricity connection bearing consumer No.10-C-002/000 Computer No.00222793.  Rabin and their sister one Jagatmohini Behera made no claim over the property of Umesh Chandra Das.  The two brother Bijan Ch. Das and Bipin Ch. Das had their separate electricity connections but the original electricity connection provided to Late Umesh Chandra Das was in consistent use by the father of the complainant Late Rabin Ch. Das and thereafter by the complainant alongwith her two brothers through sub-meter facility.  Since because the complainant is a spinster having separate mess and establishment, she had tried to have her separate electricity connection but inspite of repeated persuasions she could not succeed.  Her brother Rajib Ch. Das died in the year 2016 and Monalisha the widow of Rajiv, continued to reside and used the electrical energy as per the arrangements made before.

            On 21.12.2018 in the month  of December, the electrical consumption bill reflected consumption of 470 units amounting to Rs.2478.16p but there was another huge amount reflected in the said bill therein to the tune of Rs.3,68,323/-.  According to the complainant, when her meter was found to be O.K, she had to run after the O.Ps in order to ascertain about the arrear amount of bill as levied and reflected but could not succeed.  It is for this she had filed this case alleging about the malice, unfair trade practice and harassment by the O.Ps.  She has claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards her mental agony from the O.Ps together with a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards harassment and another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses.

2.         On the other hand, all the O.Ps have jointly contested this case and have filed their written version.  According to the written version of the O.Ps, the present case is not maintainable, the complainant has no cause of action and the case is bad for lack of jurisdiction.  Of course, the O.Ps admit that the complainant is the daughter of Late Rabin Chandra Das who is legal heir of Late Umesh Chandra Das along with Nabin,Bipin and Bijan.  They also admit about the two sons Sanjiv and Rajiv of Rabin Ch. Das and about the complainant being the daughter of Rabin.  They also admit about Monalisha Das, wife of Rajiv Ch. Das filing writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court for getting new connection.  The O.Ps allege that one Sujata Das, wife of the brother of the complainant bearing electricity connection No.00741248 as an outstanding arrear amount of Rs.3,62,434/-.  According to the O.Ps, the complainant without approaching this Commission would have gone to the appropriate Forum under GRF.  They allege that it is the complainant who has to clear the outstanding arrear of Rs.3,62,434/-.  The O.Ps have further averred that on 24.7.18 the MRT team had inspected and have found the consumer bearing Connection No.00222793 in the name of Umesh Chandra Das, there was diverted power supply to Sujata Das which was previously disconnected due to non-payment of arrear dues.  Accordingly notices were issued U/S-103,104 & 105 of O.E.R.C Code,2004.  They have further drawn attention towards the rulings at chapter- XII,Clause-105 of O.E.R.C.Code,2004 wherein it is mentioned that “no consumer was sell or transfer or divert power to any person or premises unless the agreement so provides”.  As such, the complainant had misused the electrical connection provided and is liable to clear the arrear which is due as per law.  The O.Ps have further averred that they received the interim order dt.16.1.19 on 25.2.19 but by then they had already disconnected the electricity connection provided to the complainant.  As such, they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with heavy cost.

            Either sides to this dispute have filed their respective supportive documents in order to establish their case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made from either sides, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

            iii.        Whether this Commission lacks jurisdiction to try this case?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issues No.1 & 2.

            For the sake of convenience issues no.1 & 2 are taken up first together for consideration.  From Annexure-1, which is copy of an electrical bill for the month of December,2018 regarding consumer no.00222793 an arrear amount of Rs.3,68,323/- is reflected therein.  While perusing Annexure-10, which is copy of the meter verification report relating to consumer No.00222793, it is noticed that it reflects the T.P Box seal and the terminal seal cover to be absent.  On the other hand, on perusal of Annexure-A, which is copy of meter verification report, it is reflected therein that consumer no.00741248 had no meter and the electrical connections were provided from consumer no.002227983.  Accordingly, notice was issued to Umesh Chandra Das for clearing the outstanding dues of Rs.3,68,323/-.  According to the O.Ps, as prescribed in the O.E.R.C code,2004,  “no consumer can sell or transfer or divert power to any person or premises unless the agreement so provides”.  This version of the O.Ps gains ample corroboration from the copy of the meter verification report as filed by them and reflected therein.  The complainant is silent regarding such plea as taken by the O.Ps and has made no endeavour to shatter such plea.  It appears that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.  When the rule of OERC Code,2004 is very much clear and when there is violation by the complainant to the said rule which is well made out here in this case, this Commission is compelled to arrive at a conclusion that the complainant has no cause of action to bring this case and thus this case is not maintainable.  Accordingly these two important issues are answered in the negative.

Issue No.3.

            When there is an appropriate Forum, instead of availing such Forum, the complainant preferred to come up to this Commission without exhausting the facility of the said Forum.  However, she being a consumer, this Commission holds that this Commission has ample jurisdiction to look into the matter of dispute.  Accordingly this issue is answered.

Issue No.4.

            From the above discussion, it is made out that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                                        ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24^th day of May,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.