DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

C.C NO. 01 OF 2015

Present:

                              Sri Rabindranath Mishra         - President

                             Miss Sudhira Laxmi Pattanaik  - Member .

Sri Niranjan Nayak, aged -42 years

S/O: Late Trinatha Nayak. At: Penjisahi

PO/PS: Phulbani Dist : Kandhamal .                         …………………..  Complainant.

                         Versus.

1. Junior Engineer (Elect)

Southco, Phulbani At/PO/PS: Phulbani Dist : Kandhamal

2. Executive Engineer (Elect).

Southco, Phulbani Electrical Division, Near Income Tax

Office, Phulbani PO/PS: Phulbani Town.Dist : Kandhamal ……. Opp. Parties.

For the Complainant: Sri Bhagaban Mohanty and his associates.

For the OPP. Parties: Self.

Date of Order: 11-12-2015

O R D E R

                             The case of the Complainant in brief is that one Shop Room bearing No.3 situated at new bus stand of Phulbani municipality was allotted to him but the said allotment was cancelled w.e.f 30-06-2013 and re-alloted to one Sri Gokulananda Sahoo. But the Complainant was a consumer having electric connection in the said Room No.3 bearing consumer No. 29201760017. During his occupation on 25-08-2006 the Complainant requested the O.P No.1 to disconnect electric connection of the

                                                                                                           -2-

said Room after paying the last due of Rs. 280/-. Accordingly the electric connection of the Shop Room was disconnected as he was not able to run his shop due to death of his father. On 28-6-2012 the Complainant requested the O.P No.1 to reconnect his electric line but he told him to deposit the arrear amount of Rs.20,600/- .The demand of arrear by the O.P No.1 is illegal as the line was disconnected for 6 years. On 06-09-2012 the Complainant had deposited Rs. 6000/- and Rs.300/- separately as per instruction of the O.P No.1 for reconnection charge. On 07-03-2014 he again deposited Rs. 5,000/- as per instruction of O.P No.1. He has received the last bill for the month of October 2014 to deposit Rs. 48,704/- including the arrear amounting Rs. 38,357.45 paise as on March 2014. As the bill amount was excess and illegal, the Complainant requested the O.P to correct the said bill but they remained silent and forced to deposit the same. Hence, he has filed this complaint against the O.Ps for a direction to rectify the excess bills and to declare the arrear bill was illegal and claimed compensation of Rs. 30,000/- due to deficiency in service of O.Ps and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation including other reliefs.

                              The case of the Opposite Parties as per their joint version is that the Complainant is not a Consumer as he is not occupying the shop room No.3 of Phulbani Municipality. Sri Gokulananda Sahoo was not made as a party in this case. The Complainant has been instructed to substitute a new meter in the shop room No.3 at the time of restoration of power supply on 28-06-2012 but he did not replaced any new tested meter and continuing power supply with the old defective meter till allotment of shop room-3 to Gokulananda Sahoo. As the O.P No.1 did not comply the direction of O.P No.1 the actual monthly consumption of energy could not be calculated. However the O.P is ready to revise the bill if a new meter will be replaced in place of the defective meter in shop room No. 3. As per regulation 97 of OERC dist. Code 2004 the monthly consumption of Complainant can be ascertained by taking 6 months average reading which period the Complainant was enjoying power supply of shop room no.3 till its cancellation. Neither the Complainant nor Gokulananda Sahoo intimated regarding the re-allotment of shop No.3. This case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action and the case is also barred by law of limitation. As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the case filed by the complainant be rejected.

                                                                                                             -3-                                               

                                      We have heard both the parties. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the O.Ps and the documents filed by the complainant in support of his case. Both parties have not filed any affidavit in support of their case.  However the O.ps are willing to revise the bill supplied to the Complainant if a new meter will be replaced in place of defective meter of shop room no.3 . It is seen from the receipt dated 06-09-2012 supplied to the Complainant that he has deposited Rs. 300/- for reconnection charge. It is specifically mentioned by the Complainant that on 25-08-2006 the Complainant requested the O.P No.1 to disconnect his electric connection of the shop room-3 by paying Rs. 280/- as last due. It is also seen from the said receipt that the payment was made up to July 2006. Hence, it is an admitted fact that the electric connection of the said shop room was disconnected from the month of August 2006 till 06-09-2012 the date of deposit of the reconnection charge by the Complainant. So, the complainant is not entitled to deposit any due for the said period. The O.P has not filed any documents in support of their case. It is pointed out for the first time by the O.P that the meter of the shop room no.3 was defective but there is no evidence regarding this aspect. Though the shop room No-3 was realloted to one Gokulananda Sahoo w.e.f 30-06-2013 still the electric connection is in the name of the Complainant. Hence, it can not be denied that the complainant is not a Consumer. As per intimation of the O.P No.1, the complainant had deposited Rs. 6,000/- on 06-09-2012 and Rs. 5,000/- on 07-03-2014. The Complainant is entitled to pay the electric charge from the month of September 2012.

                                               The Complainant has challenged the electricity bill for the month of October 2014 specifically the arrear as on March 2014. This complaint was filed on 01-01-2015. So, the complaint was filed in time. The plea taken by the Opp. Parties that the complaint filed by the Complainant beyond the period of limitation has no force.

                                              In the above circumstances the Complaint is allowed in part. The O.Ps are directed to revise the bill of the Complainant supplied for the month of October 2014 and to adjust Rs. 11,000/- paid by the Complainant towards his electric due from the period of September 2012 till October 2014 by excluding the charge from 25-08-2006 to 06-09-2012,the period of disconnection .The O.Ps are further directed to install the new meter in the said shop room by changing the name of the Consumer

                                                                                                         -4-

from Niranjan Nayak to Gokulananda Sahoo after performing necessary formalities. It is admitted by both parties that the shop room No.3 was re-alloted to Gokulananda Sahoo. As he is not a party in this case, we do not prefer to direct him regarding the subject matter of this case.

                                          The C.C is disposed-of accordingly but without any cost. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties. The Opp. Parties are directed to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of failure to comply the order, the Complainant shall be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5000/- from the Opp. Parties.

                                                                                        MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT