Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/15/25

Motilal Singh Laguri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Junior Engineer, NESCO, Champua - Opp.Party(s)

Sri K.N. Nanda

02 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 25 OF 2015

Motilal Singh Laguri, aged 54 years,

S/o- Late Randa Laguri, of village- Ramla,

Post/P.S- Champua,

Dist- Keonjhar                                                                            …………….Complainant

                             Vrs.

1.                    Junior Engineer, NESCO, Champua,

Dist- Keonjhar

2.                    S.D.O, Sub- Division, NESCO, Champua,

Dist- Keonjhar

3.                    Executive Engineer, NESCO, Joda,

At/Post/ P.S- Champua, Dist- Keonjhar                             ...............Op. Parties

 

PRESENT: - Shri A.K. Purohit, PRESIDENT

                     Mrs B. Giri, MEMBER (W)

                     Sri S.C. Sahoo, MEMBER

                    Advocate for the complainant - Sri K.N. Nanda

                    Advocate for the OPs - Sk. Kamal Jumlat (Authorized Person)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Date of Hearing - 02.02.2016                                                                       Date of Order- 02.03.2016

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SRI S.C. SAHOO, MEMBER:

1.             The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant has made objection before the OP-2 for rectification of bill for the month of      October 2011 amounting to Rs.67,842/- wherein shown the complainant had consumed 9993 units of electricity on actual basis and on subsequent month i.e. in the month of November 2011, the complainant consumed only 140 units and in the month of June 2011 consumed 1 unit on actual basis which seen the dispute between the complaint and the OPs and being aggrieved for revision of bill hence, this case filed by the complainant and also the cause of action arised on and from the month of April 2015 when the bill for the month of supplied to the complainant.

2.         After service of notice to all the OPs, the OPs have appeared and filed their joint version by stating that the complaint was having Consumer No. C7C20 under Domestic Tariff category and a sum of Rs.86,751.72p is pending against him up to May 2015 and the complainant has never applied for bill revision about the disputed matter. Further the OPs have stated in their version that the bill had been revised and a sum of Rs.67,809/- had been withdrawn and the same was communicated to the complainant vide their letter No.609 dt.25.7.2015 and filed a statement of energy bill/ ledger as Anex-1 and the complainant was asked to pay the rest amount of Rs.18,942.17p as to clear the arrear bill updated as on August 2015.

3.        Heard, both the parties and perused the materials on record. the complainant submitted that the OPs have not provided the correct bill after revision though there was mentioned previous outstanding and the OPs through their authorized person submitted that revision of bill has already been done and a sum of Rs.87,810/- was withdrawn as per ledger Annex-1 and the same was communicated to the complainant vide letter mentioned in the version for payment of arrear outstanding.

4.        With these materials available on records it is proved that the OPs are no way deficient in rendering service to the complainant and when electricity dues pending as outstanding and for non-payment of electricity dues it is not deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.

O R D E R

Hence, the O.Ps are directed to provide correct/ revised bill afresh from October 2011 to April 2015 (as per Annex-1 series) to till date to the complainant for payment of electricity dues onwards by taking actual meter reading within 30 days of receipt of this order and the complainant is directed to deposit 50% towards arrear of electricity dues after getting the revised bill within the same period. No order as to cost and compensation.    

          Accordingly the Case is disposed of. 

           

                                                                                                                                   I agree                                                                                       I agree

  (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                                             (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                        (Sri A.K. Purohit)                        

        Member                                                                                                     Member (W)                                                                               President                               

D.C.D.R.F, KEONJHAR                                                                            D.C.D.R.F, KEONJHAR                                                             D.C.D.R.F, KEONJHAR

 

                                                                                                                                                     Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                                                                                                              (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                                                               

                                                                 MEMBER, DCDRF, KEONJHAR