DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 09 of 2019.
Date of hearing : 21.02.2023.
Date of order : 28.03.2023.
Dated the 28th day of March 2023.
RabindraDas, S/o:-Late Bhagirathi Das,
Vill:-Nuapokhari, Po/P.S:-Bhandaripokhari,
Dist:-Bhadrak. ………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
1) The Junior Engineer, NESCO, Bhandaripokhari,
At/Po/PS:-Bhandaripokhari, Dist:- Bhadrak.
2) The S. D. O. (Electrical) NESCO, Dhamnagar,
At/Po/PS:-Dhamnagar, Dist:- Bhadrak.
3) The Executive Engineer, NESCO Utility South,
At:-AradiChhaka, Po/PS/Dist:- Bhadrak. .…………Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for Complainant : Sri Niranjan Sahoo, Advocate & Associate,
Counsel for Opp. Parties : Smt. Gayatri Pradhan, Dy. Manager (Legal).
J U D G M E N T.- 28/03/2023
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief fact of the case is that, the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps bearing Consumer No. DBS11170. The O.Ps are different level officers of NESCO. Complainant filed an application on dtd.20.02.2012 for correction of electricity bills under OTS Scheme before O.P. No.1. The O.P.No.1 advised to deposit Rs.6,906/- on next day than application will be considered. The complainant deposited Rs.6,906/-on 21.12.2012 and his application had been considered on dated 28.12.2012. The S.D.O. Dhamnagar finalized the arrear bills under OTS Scheme & directed complainant to pay Rs.6,550/-. Complainant paid Rs.6,551/- on the same day & got No Dues Certificate till February 2012 from the office of SDO, Dhamnagar. Payment made on 21.12.2012 of Rs.6,906/- was remained advance on the O.Ps. Complainant told to the O.Ps to return the said advance amount but the O.Ps told that the said advance amount shall be adjusted in subsequent billing. Complainant is a poor Brahmin who went to Rourkela for continuing his worshiping duty. The family members are innocent person who paid some bills as per their capability & continued electric consumption. On 20.12.2018, O.Ps staff (lineman) told to the wife of complainant to clear all arrear electric bill & told if all arrear electric bills will not be cleared then the office will disconnect the power supply. Complainant has no arrear bills till now & he could not know the actual figure of bills because the bill paper given by the electric department is non-visible & the bills which have been paid of Rs.6,906/- is not adjusted the said amount till now. Complainant paid regular electricity bills. Pending any electric bill is imaginary & fabricated. Complainant cleared all electric arrear bills on 28.12.2012 & subsequently paid regular bills. The cause of action arose on 20.12.2018 when the staff of O.P.No.1 threatened to the complainant to disconnect the power supply which is under jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. Due to such threatening complainant sustained mentally harassment which he assessed at Rs.10,000/- & litigation expenses Rs.10,000/- i.e. in total Rs.20,000/-. Complainant prayed for directing the O.Ps to refund the said money of Rs.6,906/- or adjust the said amount in subsequent billing & Rs.20,000/- for harassment & litigation expenses in total Rs.26,906/-.
O.Ps submits that, the averments in this case neither makes out a case nor does it disclose any cause of action & the entire litigation is an abuse of the process of the court & liable to be dismissed in limine. The alleged cause of action disclosed cannot be treated as a cause of action to maintain the consumer complaint. Complainant has categorically admitted that the alleged cause of action arose on in the year 2012 & the case has been filed in the year 2019 therefore the case is barred by limitation under Sec. 24-Aof the C.P. Act, 1986. The case is bad for mis joiner of the O.P.No.1 & 3. Nowhere in the entire complaint petition the complainant has alleged a single word against O.P.No.1 & 3, yet as a routine manner impleaded O.P.No.1 & 3 in this case. It is violation of natural justice, as no one should face trial without any basis. Therefore, their names shall deleted from the cause title & the complaint be amended accordingly. The O.Ps admit the averments made in Para-1 of the complaint petition that the complainant is a consumer bearing No. DBS 11170 corresponding to the new consumer account No. 4221-1201-0392. Further, admit the averments made in Para-2 of the complaint petition to the extent that the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme was launched in the year 2012 & widely circulated for public & the complainant opted to avail the said scheme for settlement of his arrear dues upto 2010 which was reached upto Rs. 10,9180.3 Paisa, for which he deposited Rs.6,905.23 Paisa qualifying amount before the O.P.No.2. As per mandatory requirements of OTS Scheme the complainant first cleared his arrear dues from the year 2010 to 2012. As the amount of the complainant was reached Rs.10,905.23 Ps & obtained money receipt and the said amount also reflected in the billing statement. The rest of the averments are not correct as narrated by the complainant and denied herewith. OTS Scheme was launched with certain terms & conditions. As per OTS Scheme the arrear from 2010 to 2012 has to be cleared first to avail settlement of dues upto 2010. As on 01.04.2010 the arrear outstanding was Rs.10,918.03 Ps. Therefore, complainant deposited Rs.6,550.82 Ps (60% as eligible outstanding) for which he has availed rebate of Rs.4,367.21 Ps (40% as rebate). After successful settlement of arrear dues, complainant was issued with certificate dtd.28.12.2012, wherein it was mentioned that the no further for any refund/adjustment out of the said settlement amount will be allowed. The amount of Rs.6,906/- paid was adjusted towards qualifying amount of arrear dues. O.P. No.2 never kept the said amount as an advance. The amount deposited by the complainant was also reflected in the billing statement. Moreover, no document has been filed to this effect. The photocopies filed by the complainant is neither signed & sealed nor properly received by the O.P. No.1, 2 & 3. Complainant has not impleaded the lineman as O.P. in this case. The complainant is a regular defaulter of payment of electricity dues since 2012 & to avoid disconnection of electricity due to nonpayment of huge arrear amount has hurriedly filed this case only to avoid payment of his dues. O.P. No.1 never sent any lineman to threaten for disconnection of electricity. Whenever, any disconnection is made it is made only after due written notice as per Reglation-100 of OERC Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code, 2004. All the allegation of the complainant is highly imaginary & baseless story. The prayers prayed for cannot be granted in this proceeding as it is barred by law of limitation U/s 24-A of the C.P. Act, 1986. In support of their claim the O.Ps rely on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, between National Bureau of Plant Genetic. Vrs. North Delhi Power Ltd. &Anr. On 15th December, 2015 wherein it was decided that Therefore, in view of clear provision of Sec.24-A of the Act, to be within limitation, the consumer complaint ought to have been filed within two years from the date of last over charging, latest by end of December 2002. It may not be out of place to mention that even the limitation of three years for filing the civil suit for recovery of over charged amount has expired. Along with written version the O.Ps filed a petition for payment of arrear dues from the year 2012 to till date and for regular payment of monthly dues till disposal of the case by the complainant. The case being devoid of any merit be dismissed with cost.
Having heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and after carefully considering the rival contention of belligerent parties, this Commission finds it proper to frame the following issues to settle the consumer complaint:-
- Whether the complaint has been filed within limitation?
- Whether the amount of Rs.6,906/- paid by the complainant to the OPs is not yet adjusted?
- Whether OPs have committed deficiency in providing service which caused mental harassment to the complainant?
- If so then to what relief the complainant is entitled to?
The complainant specifically alleges that on 20.12.2018, the staff of O.P.No.1 threatened to the complainant to disconnect the power supply to his house and then only the cause of action of the present complaint evolved. The case of the complainant is not that he has filed this complaint because he was over charged by the O.Ps. It is perspicuous from the averments of the complainant that he has only come to redress the issue of disconnection of energy supply to his premises. In fact, he raises the issue of over charging as an allied issue. So, the cause of action of the present complaint arose when the lineman of the O.Ps threated on 2012/2018 to disconnect power supply to his premises and he filed the present complaint in 2019 i.e. within the period of limitation. Further, the complainant has filed a copy of his application dtd. 20/12/2012 wherein he has stated that he has not consumed any electricity upto that date from July 2011 to December 2012 on account of burnt transformer of their area. The same fact has been bolstered by report of lineman and OP No.1 on the which find place on the back side of the said application of the complainant. Further, the composite bill filed by O.Ps reiterate the fact by showing zero billing from July 2011 to December 2012. As these O.Ps acknowledges their liability, the limitation extends and the cause of action only arose on 20/12/2018 when the lineman threatened to disconnect the power supply. So, the ratio of the decision in National Bureau of Plant Genetic. Vrs. North Delhi Power Ltd. & Anr is not applicable to the present complaint. So, the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Now, so far as the Issue No.2,3 & 4 is concerned, the complainant alleges that the amount of Rs.6,906/- paid by the complainant on 21/12/2012 to the O.Ps is not yet adjusted. It is evident from the case records and documents filed by both parties that the outstanding energy consumption charges upto 01/04/2010 was Rs. 10,918.03. So as a precondition to avail the OTS scheme, all consumers have to pay 60% of the balance amount to make him eligible to get the benefit. So, the alleged amount of Rs.6,906/- has been already adjusted against the arrear amount and an amount of Rs.4367.21 has been waived as rebate out of the outstanding of Rs. 10,918.03. It makes things clear that there was no outstanding till 01/04/2010 after payment of Rs.6,906/-. Admittedly, there was no supply of electricity in their area from July 2011 to December 2012. But the complainant has proved through NESCO Money Receipt No. 82261 dtd. 28/12/2012 that he has paid another Rs.6551/- towards OTS upto February 2012. The O.Ps should not charge anything upto December 2012 as power supply was not restored till that time. As it appears from the documents filed by the O.Ps the complainant is a meager user of electricity. The average consumption of the complainant from Nov 2017 to Oct 2018(Twelve Months) as per records of O.Ps comes to 31 units. So, by giving exorbitant energy outstanding bills, charging during the period when there was no supply and keeping pending the issue for so long, these O.Ps have caused deficiency in service which resulted in harassment and the ignoring the request to revise the bills, threatening to cut off power supply in case of non-payment caused mental agony of the complainant.
O R D E R.
In the result complaint is partly allowed. These O.Ps are directed to revise the bill taking the average consumption of the complainant from Nov 2017 to Oct 2018 (Twelve Months) and revise the bill from March 2012 upto this date of order and charge the complainant accordingly. The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to complainant to compensate towards his harassment and mental agony and another Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation. This order is to be carried out within 30 days from date of receipt of the order.
