SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)       

            The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P. Act, 2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”), on dated 14/11/2022, alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the SDO, Electrical, JED, Jaleswar, Balasore and OP No.2 is the Junior Manager, Electrical, Hatigarh Sub-Section, Jaleswar, Balasore.   

            The case of the complainant, in a nutshell, is that for the purpose of a prospective domestic consumer for connection of electricity under the Ops, he applied through “MO-Bidyut portal” on 08/02/2022 for single phase to his residential house situated over Plot No.429 under Khata No.158/112 of the case mouza, “Sukhadukhia”. Accordingly, the complainant was given unique permanent application number and payment transaction ID through which the complainant deposited Rs.7,460.00 towards processing fees, service connection charges, inspection fees, security deposit and meter cost including GST, on the same day.

            It is further stated by the complainant that, he is the owner in peaceful possession over the Plot No.429 to which new connection is applied for. It is the specific case of the complainant that he has got share over the said plot by way of a final decree bearing No.101 of 2014 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Jaleswar on 6.12.2014. All the aforesaid documents along with sketch map of the allotted plot were submitted to the Ops on 10/05/2022, but the Ops intentionally delayed the matter. Thus, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Ops on 21/04/2022. That on 19/05/2022, the Section Officer of the Ops verified the spot and reported that there is outstanding dues stands against the premises in the name of one Anant Kumar Mandal (brother of the complainant) and one Pramila Mandal (mother of the complainant) and the complainant has not submitted the partition deed to prove that the complainant is residing in a separate portion of the plot. It is further stated that the Ops have intentionally neglected to provide new connection to his premises, without assigning any specific reason thereof. Hence having no other option left with the present complainant files this case for proper redressal. 

            The cause of action for filing of this case arose on dated 01/11/2022, when the Ops finally refused to give new connection to his premises.   

To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record -

1. Photocopy of application form
2. Photocopy of online payment receipt.
3. Photocopy of letter regarding submission of documents.
4. Photocopy of ROR of Khata No.158/112.
5. Photocopy of order dated 6.12.2014 passed in CS No.101/2014.
6. Photocopy of Final Decree along with compromise petition & allotment sheet.
7. Photocopy of grievance details.

            In the present case, upon noticed along with complaint petition, the Ops are appeared and filed their written version. They have stated that this complainant has no cause of action to file this case nor the case is maintainable and the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Ops have stated, inter alia, that after receipt of online application on 18/05/2022 from the complainant, spot verification was conducted on 19/05/2022 and it was found that the present complainant along with his brother one Ananta Kumar Mandal and mother one Pramila Mandal and others belong to one joint family and are residing in one premises. Two service connections are already there to the alleged premises one in the name of Ananta Kumar Mandal (vide Dom. Consumer No.RGG-36015) and another in the name of Smt. Pramila Mandal (vide Dom. Consumer No.GBD-0209). All the family members are using electricity from those two connections including the present complainant. It is further stated that on 28/01/2022, verification squad had been to the premises of the complainant and found both the meters in the name of above consumers were tempered and the meters were “bi-passed” and at the spot, spot verification report was prepared and served on both the consumers and disconnected both the service connections. Thereafter, provisional assessment order for Rs.67,317.00 was prepared against Ananta Kumar Mandal (Brother of Complainant) and provisional assessment order for Rs.52,925.00 was prepared against Smt. Pramila Mandal (Mother of Complainant) and served upon them with an intimation to file objection, if any, and to appear before the Assessing Officer on the date fixed. Both of them neither appeared in the hearing nor filed any objection. Therefore, final assessment order was passed against Ananta Kumar Mandal and Smt. Pramila Mandal for Rs.71,680.00 and Rs.52,925.00 respectively and has been served upon them for payment. The present complainant, with a view to avoid the outstanding electricity dues pending against his brother and mother, has filed the present case basing on a concocted story. Further, it is the mandate of OERC Regulation that without clearance of the outstanding dues of a defaulting premises, new connection to that premises cannot be allowed, which is also statutory in nature. Therefore, deficiency in service, as alleged by the complainant, does not arise at all and prayed to dismiss the case with cost.       

In support of their case, the Ops have produced the following documents, which are placed in the record -

1. Photocopy of spot verification report in respect of Smt. Pramila Mandal.
2. Photocopy of provisional assessment order.
3. Photocopy of final assessment order in respect of Smt. Pramila Mandal.
4. Photocopy of spot verification report in respect of Ananta Kumar Mandal.
5. Photocopy of provisional assessment order.
6. Photocopy of final assessment order in respect of Ananta Kumar Mandal.
7. Photocopy of letter issued by Asst. Manager, Hatigarh to SDO(Elect), Jaleswar.

            That in view of the above averments, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
3. Whether the present case is maintainable?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?
5. To what other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to?

 F I N D I N G S

            First of all, it is to be decided as to whether the complainant is a consumer under the Ops or not. It is the case of the complainant that, with intent to have a new single phase domestic consumer connection of electricity, he applied through “MO-Bidyut portal” on 08/02/2022 to his residential house situated over Plot No.429 under Khata No.158/112 of the case Mouza “Sukhadukhia” and he was given with a unique permanent application number and payment transaction ID through which the complainant deposited Rs.7,460.00 towards processing fees, service connection charges, inspection fees, security deposit and meter cost including GST on the same day. In this context, Annexure-1 to 6 provide ample support to the effect that the complainant had applied for new electric connection, deposited the amount as stated and supplied the required documents to prove himself to be a bonafide consumer. On the other hand, the Ops have not denied the same fact. Thus, this Commission has nothing to disbelieve that the complainant is not a consumer.

            For the shake of convenience and for better appreciation, issue No.ii & iii are taken up together. Before delve into the merit of the case, it is felt necessary to discuss as to why the Ops have not yet extended their hands to provide the electric supply to the premises of the complainant. In this connection, learned counsel for the complainant urged that the complainant is the owner in peaceful possession over the Plot No.429 over which new connection is applied for and he has got his share over the said plot by way of a final decree bearing No.101 of 2014 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Jaleswar on 06/12/2014. All the aforesaid documents along with sketch map of the allotted plot were sent to the Ops on 10/05/2022. Further, the complainant has deposited the amount so required for the purpose. In spite of all formalities are fulfilled, the Ops have intentionally delayed the matter. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Ops on 21/04/02022. On 19/05/2022, the Section Officer of the Ops verified the spot and reported that there is outstanding dues stant against the same and one premises which is in the name of Anant Kumar Mandal (brother of the complainant) and Smt. Pramila Mandal (mother of the complainant) and the complainant has not submitted the partition deed to prove that the complainant is residing in a separate portion of the plot. It is further submitted that the Ops have intentionally neglected to provide new connection to his premises. On the other hand, the Ops have not stated a single line to show that they have not at all received the application from the complainant not received the amount so deposited by him. The reason for not supplying the new connection will be made later on, but from the above discussions, it is clearly made out that the complainant has cause of action to file the case and the case is maintainable.

            So far as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the complainant that on 19/05/2022, the Section Officer of the Ops verified the spot and reported that there is outstanding dues present at the premises in the name of Anant Kumar Mandal (brother of the complainant)  and Smt. Pramila Mandal (mother of the complainant) and the complainant has not submitted the partition deed to prove that the complainant is residing in a separate portion of the plot. It is further submitted that the Ops have intentionally neglected to provide new connection to his separated premises.

            In the backdrop of above contention, learned counsel on behalf of the Ops submitted that on spot verification conducted on 19/05/2022, it was found that the present complainant along with his brother Ananta Kumar Mandal and mother Smt. Pramila Mandal and others belong to one joint family and are residing in one premises and two service connections are there to the alleged premises; one in the name of Ananta Kumar Mandal (vide Dom. Consumer No.RGG-36015) and another in the name of Smt. Pramila Mandal (vide Dom. Consumer No.GBD-0209). All the family members including the complainant are using electricity from those two connections. It is further submitted that on 28/01/2022, verification squad had been to the premises of the complainant and found both the meters in the name of above consumers were tampered and the meters were “bi-passed”s and at the spot, spot verification report was prepared and served on both the consumers and disconnected both the service connections. Thereafter, provisional assessment order for Rs.67,317.00 was prepared against Ananta Kumar Mandal and provisional assessment order for Rs.52,925.00 was prepared against Smt. Pramila Mandal and served upon them with an intimation to file objection, if any, and to appear before the Assessing Officer on the date fixed. Neither they filed their objections nor took part in the hearing. Therefore, final assessment order was passed against Ananta Kumar Mandal and Smt. Pramila Mandal for Rs.71,680.00 and Rs.52,925.00 respectively and has been served upon them for payment. The present complainant, with a view to avoid the outstanding electricity dues pending against his brother and mother, has filed the present case basing on a concocted story.

            In the light of the above rival submissions of both the parties, this Commission is to see and verify as to how far the complainant is proved himself to be eligible for a new consumer. The section 17 (i) of Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 speaks that “If the applicant in respect of an earlier agreement executed in his/her name or in the name of his spouse, son, daughter, parents or in the name of a firm or company with which he/she was associated either as a partner, director or managing director, is in arrears of electricity dues or other dues for the same premises or his/her other premises situated in the same DISCOM or any other DISCOM in the State, the application for supply, shall not be allowed by the engineer until the arrears are settled and paid in full”.

Section 17(iii) of the Code speaks that “Where a property/premises has been legitimately sub-divided, the outstanding dues for the consumption of energy on such undivided property, if any, shall be divided on pro-rata basis based on area of such sub-divided property. Similarly, the security deposit shall also be adjusted on pro-rata basis basic on the above methodology”.

            In the present case, the complainant was supposed to be well aware about the outstanding electric dues on the premises over which he has applied for a new connection, either he constructed new house for his residential purpose or not. No doubt, the complainant is allotted with the Plot No.429 in a Final Decree proceeding, but it cannot be said that the total premises, over which the complainant is residing and applied for a new consumer, is free from any outstanding electricity dues. It is clearly stated by the Ops that a sum of Rs.71, 680.00 was outstanding against Ananta Kumar Mandal and Rs.52, 925.00 was outstanding against Smt. Pramila Mandal, who are none other than his brother and mother respectively. That apart, the complainant has admitted in his complaint petition that on 19/05/2022, the Section Officer of the Ops verified the spot and reported that there is outstanding dues present at the premises in the name of his brother Anant Kumar Mandal and mother Smt. Pramila Mandal and the complainant has not submitted the partition deed to prove that the complainant is residing in a separate portion of the plot. Thus, after knowing the said fact that the premises over which he is residing and applied for a new connection is a “defaulting premises”s and huge electricity dues is remaining outstanding, the complainant has not taken any step to clear up the outstanding dues at least over the plot in which he has constructed his residential house even though the said premises has been legitimately sub-divided. Neither the complainant has taken any step to comply the defects as detected by the Ops nor approached the Ops to sort out the problems. A new connection to such sub-divided premises shall be given only after the share of outstanding dues attributed to such legitimately sub-divided premises is duly paid by the applicant. In that case, the Ops shall not refuse connection to the complainant only on the ground that dues on the other portions of such premises have not been paid, nor shall the Ops demand record of last paid bills of other portions from the complainant. Further, it is the mandate of OERC Regulation that without clearance of the outstanding dues of a defaulting premises, new connection to that premises cannot be allowed, which is also statutory in nature. From the above discussions and keeping in view the mandate of OERC Regulations, the complainant is not entitled for a new electricity connection at this situation. Therefore, the prayer for providing new electricity connection to the separated premises of the complainant merits no consideration in the present circumstances.

            At the same time, deficiency in service on the part of the Ops cannot be ruled out. While looking into the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, it is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the complainant has provided all the relevant documents so also deposited the required fees for a new electricity connection to his premises, but the Ops remained silent and did not extended their hands to solve the problem. In such case, it is seen that the complainant had deposited Rs.07, 460.00 on 08/02/2022 and the Assistant Manager (Electrical), Hatigarh Section reported to the SDO (Electrical), Jaleswar vide Annexure-7 that they cannot provide a new service connection to the complainant in the same premises due to arrear dues pending. If that be so, it is the first and foremost duty of the Ops to refund the amount so deposited by the complainant forthwith, but they remained silent and slept over the matter receiving the money from the complainant. Even if it is to be believed that the Ops have intimated the complainant to return the amount, but not a single document is produced on behalf of the Ops to show that they have ever informed the complainant about the matter nor have taken any step to return the amount so deposited by the complainant till date. Had the Ops been returned the deposited amount to the complainant, the matter would have been decided otherwise. But non-taking of any step for this purpose and also not guiding the complainant to have way out of dispute to have the connection, leaves all in vacuum.

            Hence upon travelling through the substance, as aforesaid, and described circumstances leads this Commission to arrive at unanimous conclusion that there is gross deficiency on both the part of the OPs and all the OPs are jointly and severally liable for loss incurred on the part of the complainant.

            So, now upon careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record vis-a-vis submission made by complainant & O.Ps, and such documents as sought for from competent Authority, this Commission is of the unanimous opinion that the OPs have not adjudicated their dispute properly before the Commission. There is no solution arrived by the O.Ps for the loss sustained / suffered by the Complainant incurring out of gross deficiency on the part of both the OPs, which legally termed as deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for. Hence, it is ordered –

O R D E R

            Having regard to the judgement reflected above, the Complaint Petition of the instant Consumer bears merit and hence allowed in part, on contest against both the O.Ps. That this Commission is of the unanimous opinion that there is a gross deficiency on the part of the OP No -1 & OP No -2. Hence the O.P No – 1 & 2, are hereby severally and jointly set liable for their deficiency of services.

            That, invoking and relying upon Sec-17(III) if the OERC Code – 19, the OPs are hereby directed to intimate the complainant regarding his “proportionate” proportion of arrear due, out of the total assessed due stand against the un-divided premises plot, calculating the same from effected / calculated date of Section 126(1) till the date of filling of partition deed before the proper court of law, and the complainant is required to make payment of the same.

            That, upon receipt of the payment, the O.Ps are hereby directed to provide Electricity supply / connection formalities and give supply within the permitted gestation period.

            The O.Ps are hereby directed to make payment and / or reimburse, interest @ 9.00% p.a on New connection payment receipt of Rs.07,460.00, from the date of deposit till the date of supply of Electricity to the complainant’s premises.

            That, the Consumer case is allowed in part, on contest against both the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost to Parties to the case.  

            Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 04th day of July, 2023 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.