DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 71 OF 2015
Sabitri Naik (50 Yrs),
W/O: Kunjabehari Naik,
RO: Jharsuguda, Bombay Chowk, Flat No.13,
Represented through Power of Attorney Holder
Bunty Kumar Naik,…………..………….…….…………………..……Complainant.
Versus
Executive Engineer, WESCO Jharsuguda Division,
At / PO/PS/ Dist : Jharsuguda Odisha….…………….…….…..…..…….Opp. Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Shri P.K.Patel, Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp. Party Shri B.B.Barai, Adv. Associates.
Date of Order: 20.04.2016
Present
1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.
2. Smt. A. Nanda, Sr. Member.
Smt. Anamika Nanda, Sr. Member :- This case has been filed by the complainant earlier which was registered as C.C Case No. 122 of 2013. He has alleged that she has taken electricity connection for domestic purpose and as per unit of electric consumption by her she was paying electric dues regularly. All of a sudden in the month of April the O.P supplied bill of Rs.81,433/- only and in the month of May supplied the bill of Rs. 1,77,501.54P in the month of June supplied a bill of Rs.2,87,313.13P , in the month of July supplied a bill of Rs.4,10,644.97P, in the month of August bill of Rs.4,14,246/-, in the month of September a bill of Rs.5,59,280.40P, in this way in the month of June the O.P has supplied a bill of Rs.7,17,739.05P for which the complainant filed this consumer case and when the complainant filed her grievance before the O.P, the O.P directed her to deposit Rs.35,000/- only in order to consider her grievance for which the complainant had deposited the said amount of Rs.35,000/- on dtd. 30.09.2013. In spite it when the O.P did not correct the illegal bill she files this case. This Hon’ble Forum vide order dated 22.09.2014 passed an order to supply legitimate electric bill with in a period of two months and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- only for causing mental agony and cost of litigation and directed the O.P to adjusted the said amount in the further electric bill. In spite of direction of Ho’ble Forum when the O.P did not complied the same the complainant filed C.C Case No.116 of 2014 claiming relief to direct the O.P to supply bill as per actual unit consume or in case of defective meter to supply bill as per unit consumer normally period from April,2012. The said case was filed as the O.P issued bill of Rs.62,473/- only. After hearing both the parties the said case was disposed of on dtd. 29.07.2015 directing the O.P to access the view fairly as per normal unit consume by her and also directed to the complainant to pay the legitimate
dues. In spite of the direction of this Hon’ble Forum the O.P further supplied a bill of Rs.63,523/- only on dtd. 25.09.2015 without adjusting the Rs. 35,000/- only deposited by the complainant on dtd. 30.09.2013. The complainant has claim that she was paying Rs.300/- to 400/- per month even if the meter was defective then O.P should haave calculate the amount as per the said unit which she was paying prior to supply of defective bills.
The O.P. have submitted counter and claiming that this case is barred by Res-Judicata. But it is seen that the first case i.e. C.C. Case No. 122 of 2013 was filed for bill of Rs.7,13,525/- only was issued. The second case i.e. C.C.Case No. 116 of 2014 when the bill of Rs.62,473/- only was issued. In spite of direction to issue afresh bill and the present case was filed on dtd., 25.09.2015 for bill of Rs.63,523/- only is issued. So the case of the complainant’s causes are different. The prime issue in this case is whether the bill of Rs.63,523/- only was issued on dtd. 25.09.2015 or there is deficiency of service from the side of O.P, hence the present case is not barred by Res-Judicata. Despite which is involved in the present case could not have been raised in the earlier causes and decided in earlier cases. So it is to be seen that whether the supply of bill of 63,523/- only on 25.09.2015 it sustainable or is liable to be set-aside. It is seen that the complainant was paying Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- only per month. The defective bill was supplied in the month of April, 2012. So calculating electric dues from April,2012 to April,2015 for 36 months at the maximum rate of Rs.400/- only comes to Rs.14,400/- only. The complainant already had deposited Rs.35,000/- only on dtd. 30.09.2013 vide MR No. A3-8106041 so the complainant had already paid excess amount. Thus the present supply of bill of Rs.63,523/- only is amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.
In view of the present circumstances, we allow the complaint of the complaint with following orders as follows:-
ORDER
The O.P. is hereby directed to adjust the electric bill of complainant which already deposited excess amount of Rs.20,600/- only from the month of May,2015 to April,2016 i.e 12 month @ Rs.400/- per month = Rs.4,800/-. After adjusted all arrear bills, rest balance of Rs.15,800/- ( Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred ) only shall be adjusted in future bill of complainant i.e May,2016 onwards. Further the O.P is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- ( Rupees two thousand ) only to the complainant towards harassment, mental agony including litigation costs within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today the 20th day of April’ 2016 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.
I Agree.
S. L. Behera, President A.Nanda, Sr. Member
Dictated and corrected by me
A.Nanda, Sr. Member
