Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/77/2016

Anama Ch Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Electricals , DED CESU. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL

                                                C.C.Case No. 77 of 2016

Anama Charan Sahoo, aged about 54 years

s/o late Kulamani Sahoo,

Vill: Koriapal, PO: Pipala, P.S: Kamakhyanagar,

Dist: Dhenkanal                                                                     Complainant

                                                                Versus

Manager Electrical, DED,CESU Dhenkanal

At: Kathagada, P.S: Town, PO/Dist: Dhenkanal                Opp. Party

Present: Sri  Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,

                  Sri Khirod Kumar Pani, Member

                  Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

Counsel: For the complaiannt:  Nirmal Mishra & Associates

                  For the Opp.a Party: None appeared

Date of hearing argument: 27.12.2016

Date of order: 06.01.2017

                                                                JUDGMENT

Sri Khirod Kumar Pani, Member

                In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Party.

1)            Very briefly, the case of the complainant stated are that he is the son and legal heir  of late Kulamani Sahoo who  had availed power supply during his life time for a contract demand of 1.5 K.W under domestic category.  The complainant after the death of his father has been enjoying and also paying the dues of consumption charges.  It is alleged that the Transformer was damaged in the month of July-2003 for which power supply was not available to the premises of the complainant and it was restored in the month of October-2006 after installation of a new transformer.  After restoration of power supply, bills were issued to the complainant showing arrear of Rs. 60,482/- during the disconnection period.  The complainant lodged complaint before the O.P but the O.P compelled the complainant to pay the amount failing which the complainant was threatened for disconnection.  Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum seeking for a direction to the Opp. Party to waive the amount for the period from July-2003 to October-2006 for which period there is no power supply and to issue a revised bill.  Besides, the complainant claims compensation and cost of the litigation of Rs. 60,000/-.

2)     Notice was issued to the Opp. Party.  Despite receipt of notice and several adjournments the Opp. Party neither appeared nor filed any written version denying the allegations of the complainant for which the matter was heard on merit from the complainant alone basing on the documents available on record. The sole allegation of the complainant is that the deceased father Kulamani Sahoo of the complainant had availed power supply on payment of consideration for a contract demand of 1.5 K.W under domestic tariff bearing A/c No. 03130758.  After the death of the original consumer, the complainant has been enjoying power supply and also paying the dues electricity consumption charges, thus he is a consumer under the Opp. Party. It is alleged that in the month of July-2003 the Transformer was break down for which there was no power supply till November-2006 and the power supply was restored in the month of October-2006.  But the Opp. Party during the period of non-supply of electricity have charged dues of consumption which is not tenable under law and the complainant is not liable to pay any dues during the period of non-supply.  Despite several approaches, the O.P did not revise the bills and did not exempt the complainant from payment of dues for the period of non-supply due to break down of Transformer which amounts to deficiency in service.  The contents of the petition are supported by affidavit.  On the other hand there is no denial of the allegations from the side of the Opp. Party for which we have no choice except to accept the contentions of the complaint petition which are supported by affidavit.  Since there was no power supply to the premises of the complainant due to break down of transformer for the period from July-2003 to November-2006, he is no liable to pay any consumption charges for the above period.  In this regard we are fortified by a decision National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in I (1991) CPJ page 182 in case of the Karnataka State Electricity Board & another versus Escon Private Limited and another wherein it has been held that   the charges levied on the basis of minimum charges are not recoverable during the period when no electricity had been supplied to the consumer.  Now therefore, taking into consideration of the factual aspects and the case law referred to above we come to a conclusion that the complainant is not liable to pay the minimum charges for the period of non-supply.  Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to get relief.  Hence ordered.

                                                                ORDER

                The complaint is allowed on exparte in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs.  The Opp. Party is directed to revise the bills from July-2003 to November-2006 by giving exemption to the complainant from payment of any consumption charges.  Besides the Opp. Party is directed to pay cost of the litigation of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only to the complainant. The compliance of the directions shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

 

( Miss Bijayalaxmi satapathy) (Badal Bihari Pattanaik)  (Khirod Kumar Pani)

             Member                                 President                        Member