1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he is the GPA holder on behalf of his father, Judhisthir Moharana and hence he is the  consumer under the Ops vide Consumer No.714201260594 at his residential house situated at Saraswati Nagar, Semiliguda Town.  It is submitted that on 22.11.2013 the complainant sent a letter by Regd. Posts to OP-1 with copy to OP.3 requesting him to disconnect the power supply to the house as his family shifted elsewhere and as the family of the complainant returned to Semiliguda, the complainant made representation to Ops on 31.10.2016 to reconnect the electricity connection to his house.  As the Ops did not reconnect the facility, the father of the complainant wrote to DGM, Electrical Circle, Jeypore for reconnection on 04.1.2017 but the OP.2 sent a bill worth Rs.33, 786/- on 11.1.2017 requiring payment by the complainant for reconnection.  The complainant submitted that there was a due of Rs.16, 095/- on his house vides bill of October, 2013 and out of that he had deposited Rs.5000/- with the Ops on 18.3.2014 but the Ops arbitrarily demanding excess amount by playing mischief.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to restore the power supply to the house of the complainant by revising the inflated bill and to pay Rs.60, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint contending that the complainant is a stranger to the Ops whereas, Sri Judhisthir Moharana is the consumer of electricity, supplied to the house in question vide Consumer No.714201260594 and as per application dt.22.11.2013 of the complainant, the Ops are not supposed to disconnect the power supply to the premises.  It is contended that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.16, 095/- against the consumer as on 10/2013 and it has gone up to Rs.23, 785/- by 4/2014 and the consumer was pleased to pay Rs.5000/- on 18.03.2014.  It is further contended that when the energy charges gone up to Rs.33, 786/- by 01/2015, the Ops disconnected the power supply.  It is further contended that on receipt of notice/order from the Forum, the OP.2 requested the complainant to deposit Rs.11, 095/- and to submit copy of GPA vide his letter No.112 dt.03.03.2017 and the consumer has deposited the amount by 12.4.2017.  It is also further contended that there was no disconnection on the application dt.22.11.2013 of Manoranjan Moharana as he was not the consumer of the Ops.  The bill amount was accrued to the tune of Rs.33, 786/-during the period of disconnection and the consumer is to pay that amount.  The Ops contended that the application dt.22.11.2013 for disconnection of power supply by Manoranjan Moharana does not reveal about Power of Attorney whereas the application dt.25.10.2016 speaks of Special Power of Attorney for all legal matters to Manoranjan Moharana and hence the Ops are not aware of the fact of power of attorney as the same is not communicated to the Ops.  The Ops further contended that the complainant furnished the deposit receipts on 12.4.2017 and on the same day the Ops reconnected the supply to the premises.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their case.  The complainant filed affidavit and the Ops filed written argument through their Advocate.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials on record.

4.                     In this case, electricity supply has been given by the Ops to house stands recorded in the name of Judhisthir Moharana vide Consumer No.714201260594, who is the father of Manoranjan Moharana, the present complainant.  It is an admitted fact that the present complainant has applied for disconnection of power supply on 22.11.2013 but the Ops did not disconnect the supply treating the complainant as stranger and only disconnected the power supply during Jan., 2015 due to nonpayment of electricity dues.  The complainant stated that he being the SPA holder of his father applied for disconnection of power supply on 22.11.2013 and duly intimated that he is the attorney of his father and when again he applied for reconnection, the OP.2 on 11.1.2017 through email demanded arrear amount of Rs.33, 786/-.  The Ops also stated that as they have no knowledge about the complainant as attorney holder of his father, they cannot disconnect the power supply and the complainant is to pay the dues as demanded.

5.                     From the above rival contentions of the parties, the following issues emerge importance for consideration in order to come to a right conclusion in this case.  (1) Whether the present complainant is the attorney holder of his father and the power of attorney holder is eligible to file a consumer dispute? (2) Whether the complainant has intimated the Ops in his request letter dt.22.11.2013 for disconnection of power supply, that he is the attorney of his father? (3) Whether the Ops had taken any action on that letter? (4) Whether the Ops committed any deficiency in service by not disconnecting the power supply to the premises in question as per request of the complainant? and (5) if so, as to what relief?

6.                     While deciding Issue No.1 it is seen that the complainant has filed copy of Power of Attorney dt.12.10.2006 executed by Sri Judhisthir Moharana authorizing his younger son, Manoranjan Moharana-complainant to have all rights over the landed property measuring 8.5 cents situated at Saraswati Nagar, Semiliguda to which the Ops have supplied power connection.  In this case, power has been given by a father to his son and not to a stranger and hence the complainant being the attorney of his father is entitled to act as per the powers bestowed upon him and also is entitled to file a complaint under C.P/ Act being a consumer of the Ops and this issue is decided accordingly.

7.                     While deciding Issue No.2 it is seen that the complainant has sent a letter dt.22.11.2013 requesting the Ops to disconnect the facilities due to some personal reasons with copy to all quarters and in that letter, duly received by the Ops, the complainant has categorically intimated the Ops that his father has given SPA on 12.12.2006 in his favour to take up any legal action arising out of said landed property although the said landed property stands recorded in the name of his father.  By virtue of SPA and with that letter the complainant has requested the Ops to disconnect the power supply to the premises.  The complainant has also filed documents showing that he has sent copy of that application and other details through email and website of the Ops.  It is also seen that the Dispatcher of OP.3’s office has received the said letter dt.22.11.2013 of the complainant and acknowledged with seal and signature.  From the above facts it was clearly ascertained that the complainant has duly intimated the Ops that he is the SPA holder over his father’s property in question.  So this issue also goes in favour of the complainant.

8.                     While deciding Issue No.3, it is seen that the Ops after getting interim order dt.03.02.2017 of the Forum requested the complainant through their letter dt.112 dt.03.03.2017 to deposit Rs.11, 095/- and to submit copy of GPA.  For the first time, the Ops requested the complainant to furnish the copy of GPA with due attestation while asking for deposit of Rs.11, 095/- as ordered by this Forum but on receipt of request letter of the complainant dt.22.11.2013, they never felt it proper to enquire about the contents of said letter.  The Ops should have intimated the complainant and his father about the changing circumstances of the situation basing on the application of the complainant.  The complainant has categorically mentioned that he is the SPA holder of his father but the Ops without giving any weightage to the contentions of the complainant, they slept over the matter all along and when they got the interim order from this Forum, they woke up.  The Ops further stated in their counter that the application dt.22.11.2013 of the complainant does not reveal about any SPA.  The copy of that letter which is available on record clearly reveals that the complainant is the SPA holder over the property in question.  The Ops might have intentionally ignored the contentions of the complainant in the said letter treating the complainant as a stranger.  A stranger can not apply for disconnection of power supply before the Ops and the Ops should know it.  If anybody applies for disconnection of power supply, there must be some reason behind such application and the Ops should have taken the matter with due weightage but the Ops have taken the matter very lightly and thereby committed mistake.  Therefore, it was ascertained that the Ops have not taken up any action on that letter of the complainant resulting accumulation of arrear amount as they say and thus committed deficiency in service for which the complainant suffered.  Thus the Issue No.3 & 4 decided in favour of the complainant.

9.                     We have already held that the Ops by not disconnecting the power supply to the premises of the complainant as per his application dt.22.11.2013 have committed deficiency in service and hence the complainant is entitled for some relief by way of revision of bills from December, 2013 till disconnection i.e. 01/2015.  Perused the Bill statement furnished by the Ops from which it was ascertained that bills have been raised on average basis till 01/2015 and thereafter, no charges have been levied on the complainant due to disconnection effected.  In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Ops are to be directed to raise bill up to 11/2013 and to treat power disconnection to the premises from 12/2013 and to revise the bills accordingly.  Therefore, the complainant is to pay energy bill till 11/2013.  Further the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.50, 000/- as he has been harassed by the Ops.  It is seen that the complainant has applied for restoration of power supply to the premises on 25.10.2016 but the Ops have not restored the supply.  It is also seen that after filing of this case and by virtue of interim order of the Forum, the Ops supplied power.  For such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to serve the revised energy bill on the complainant up to 11/2013 by treating disconnection of power supply to the premises of the complainant from 12/2013 and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)