Orissa

Rayagada

CC/33/2017

Sri Ashok Kumar Moharana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Junior Engineer Electrical - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 33 / 2017.                                Date.  2   . 07 . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, .                              Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

 

Sri Ashok Kumar Moharana, S/O: Late Udaya Nath Maharana, Raniguda farm,    Po/Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                    …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Junior  Engineer, Section No.2,  Electrical Section,  SOUTH.CO., Rayagada. 

                                                                                     .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :-  Deputy Manager (Law), Electrical Circle, Rayagada.

                                               

                                        J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non  revision of    excess  electricity  bill  bearing consumer  No. 311102470015.

 

On being noticed the O.Ps     appeared through their learned counsel and filed   written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P. Hence the O.P   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

Undisputedly  that the complainant is a consumer of the O.P. bearing No. 311102470015 as revealed from the  Electrical bills filed by  the  complainant which is in the file  marked as Annexure-I.  The complainant had received Electricity   consumption bill  for the month of May ,2011  a sum  Rs.25,126/-  from the O.Ps  for payment.  After  receipt of the above bill the complainant  had informed to the  O.P.  to verify the meter reading  and revise the bill  for facilitating  payment inter alia to  replace the existing  defective  meter with a new one. In spite of repeated  contact with the O.Ps  they have not revised the bill and not replaced the actual defect free meter.  Hence this C.C. case.

In the written version in para No. 1   the O.P. contented that the above complaint petition  is not legally maintainable in the eye of  law.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act ?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation.  It is held and reported in  2010 (1) CPR- 255  where  in the hon’ble  National   Commission  observed  Section-3 of the C.P. Act and Section 175 of the Electricity Act provides that they are in addition and not in derogation to any other law of rights  to be heard   & redressal  of the grievances under any other law for the time being in force.  Therefore the C.P. Act are not affected by the Electricity Act. Consumer of electrical  energy provided   by the  company, is a  consumer   as defined under Section 2(1)(o)  of the C.P.Act and a complaint alleging any deficiency on the part of the  SOUTHCO  including any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality  nature  and manner of performance which  is required  to be   maintained by  or under any law or in pursuance of any contract in relation to service, is maintainable  under the  C.P. Act.  

Accordingly answered the issue.   The complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act.

The O.P. in their written version para No. 2 contended that  the complainant  before filing the present petition before the forum  no point of time the complainant has approached the  O.Ps for revision  of bill. So the complaint petition is not maintainable.

To  substantiate the above para  the  complainant has filed  4 Nos. of letters  which was  addressed to the O.Ps  on different dates i.e. Dt.12.1.2012, 3.4.2013, 22.3.2014,  28.2.2015 respectively which are in the file marked as Annexure-2 to 5.

This forum found  the excess bill for the month of May, 2011  against the above consumer  No.  inter alia  amounts charged Rs.25,126/- which is  illegal as the above  consumer is domestic user.

The O.P. in para No.3  submitted that  on considering the  allegation and statement of billing, it is dictated that during the  defective meter  period the monthly  bill was raised in  provisional  basis from 6/2011 to 12/2011 and load factor basis and average basis  from 2/2012 to 9/2012. On considering the average  unit consumption , after the installation of the new meter in the month of 5/2012, the bill has been revised and the revised amount has been effected in the month of July, 2017. After such  revision there is no question of further revision(copies of the revision  statement  and statement  of billing  are in the file marked as   Annexure-6 to 7 respectively.

The complainant in the present  case  during the course  of hearing  he has  received the  above statement  of billing  from the O.P through this forum and not  objected the  above revision.

This forum agreed with revision made by the O.P. and also received with out objection by the complainant inter alia   agreed & satisfied with   the above revision. 

 Basing on the  above revision this forum found there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.           

            Accordingly the case is closed  as not pressed by the  complainant. Parties are left  to bear their own cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this                 2nd.   Day of     July, 2018.

               

               

 Member.                                                            Member.                                      President