Orissa

Nuapada

CC/10/2018

Nirasa Keut, aged about 35 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

Junior Engineer, WESCO UTILITY, Nuapada - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.S.Yadav

18 Dec 2018

ORDER

          In the matter of complaint petition filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service by the opposite parties.

The factual matrix of the case is that :-

          The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide Consumer No. Old Account No. 906231020474, New A/c No. – 90221020400 and she was paying electricity dues in each month without any default and there was no outstanding till the month of February 2014.  Thereafter the opposite parties department issued a bill for the month of January 2016 was tune of Rs. 1,912/-.  But the opposite parties (WESCO) enhanced the bill amount in the month of February 2016 to extent of Rs. 33,450/- without any basis and when the complainant protested the same before the O.P. No. 1 to 3 they explained that the outstanding dues of Babuli Mishra has been credited to the outstanding dues of the complainant.  But Babuli Mishra has never availed any electricity connection from the opposite parties in his name and he is not a consumer of the opposite parties.  Thereafter the complainant approached  the opposite parties to rectify and reconciliation the bill but the opposite parties bluntly denied and disconnected the electricity which is illegal and unreasonable. Further the complainant gave a representation to O.P. No. 3 on 14.08.2014 to rectify the exorbitant bill but he denied the same for which the complainant mentally agonized due to lack of services provided by the opposite parties.  As such the complainant claimed for relief’s as prayed for.

          The complainant has filed the documents in support of their claim as under :-

1)    Attested Xerox copy of Money Receipt No. – A73221177, dated 23.10.2015 issued by the WESCO, Head Office ,Burla  (Annexure-1),  Money Receipt No. – A₈ 5228158, dt. 14.05.2016 (Annxure-1/1), Money Receipt No. – A7  8611009, dt. 17.03.2016 (Annexure-1/2, Money Receipt No.- A₉ 8199106, dt. 06.03.2017 (Annexure-1/3), Money Receipt No. -A₉ 8199107, dt. 06.03.2017 (Annexure-1/4) and Money Receipt No. –B₂  2265062, dt. 16.10.2017 (Annexure-1/5).

2)    Attested xerox copy of Electricity Bill issued in the name of complainant vide Consumer New Account No. – 906231021489, Old Account No.- DOM-NPD-1349 for the month of February 2016, January 2016, November 2015, October 2015 and September 2015 which are marked as Annexure- 2, 2/1, 2/2, 2/3 & 2/4.

 

          Being noticed, opposite parties have appeared through their Advocate and filed their written version.

 

              In written version, the opposite parties have stated that the consumer number provided by the complainant in this case does not found place in her name as per the records maintained by the opposite parties and the said consumer number stands recorded in another name and as such the complainant is not a consumer under opposite parties and she has no locus standi to initiate this case and the case is barred by limitation.

 

               The opposite parties have also challenged the complaint of complainant in this case and they have not filed any documents in this case.

 

        In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :-

 

I)             Whether the complaint is maintainable in the eye of law  ?

 

II)           Whether any negligence and deficiency in service on the part  of the opposite parties  ?

 

III)          To what relief, the complainant is entitled to  ?

 

 ISSUE No. I & II. :-

On perusal of case record as well as the documents of the complainant, it is found that the consumer number provided by the complainant in this case does not found place in her name.  Here, there is no such any supporting documents from the side of complainant that she is a consumer of opposite parties vide Consumer No. – Old Account No. – 906231020474, New Account No. – 90221020400.  So it is clear crystal that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties as per the above said consumer numbers.

          Further, it is seen that there is a discrepancy between the pleadings and documents of complainant as because the documents an Annexure – 1 to 2/4 clearly speaks that the complainant  is a consumer vide New Account No.- 906231021489, Old Account No. – DOM-NPD-1349 which is not related in this case as there is no any relief claimed on it by the complainant.

          So, we found that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties and as such the question of negligence of deficiency in service by the opposite parties does not arise.

          Further, it is seen that the alleged dispute relates to February 2014 and the case has been filed in March 2018 i.e. after more than two years without any explanation and thus the case is barred by limitation as per the Consumer Protection Act and  as such the case is not maintainable in the eye of law.

          Perused the documents of the complainant, we found that the claim of complainant is not genuine and it is irrelevant and as such not taken in consideration.       

Advocate for both the parties have argued in this case in support of their claims.   

          Advocate for opposite parties has  filed a decision of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in C.D. Appeal No. 1342/2003 decided on 30.03.2012 in the case of Kalakanhu Biswal  V/s…  The Executive Engineer, WESCO, Bolangir and also a decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in original Petition No. 59 of 1996 decided on 02.08.2002 in the case of M/s Shri Gayatri Alloy Steels Pvt., Ltd. V/s… U.P. State Electricity Board and another.  (2002 (3) CPR 278. (N.C.) which are applicable in this case.

          So, we are considered opinion that there is no any negligence or deficiency in service by the opposite parties and as such they are not liable in this case.

          Accordingly, the issues are answered and goes in favour of the opposite parties.

ISSUE No. III :-

It is clear crystal that the complainant has failed to prove her case and she is not entitled to get relief in this case.

          So, this issue goes in favour of the opposite parties.

          Accordingly, the case is dismissed as no merit. Parties  to bear their own cost.