DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 19th day of November, 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 98 of 2016
Sri Bhaskar Chandra Panda
S/o Late Chakradhar Panda
Vill: Baulapala samil Bhatapada,
Po: Bhatapada,
Ps: Tihidi,
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. S.D.O, Electrical, NESCO
At/Po/Via/Ps: Tihidi,
Dist: Bhadrak
2. Junior Engineer, Electrical, NESCO,
At/Po: Nandapur,
Via/Ps: Tihidi,
Dist: Bhadrak
3. Executive Engineer, Electrical, NESCO
At: Bypass Road,
Po/Via/Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Advocate For the Complainant: Sri N. P. Behera & Others
Advocate For the O.Ps: H.K. Pati & Others
Date of hearing: 21.05.2018
Date of order: 19.11.2018
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
That, the complainant has alleged against the O.Ps having aggrieved with their deficiency in service caused towards him. The complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps company since the year 1985 from the time of State Electricity Board Vide- T.T No. 1757 as he is using it as domestic purpose. The complainant received the bill from O.Ps company for month of November, 2015 as Rs 136/- and for the month of December, 2015 as Rs 230/- and he also paid the same amount to the O.Ps and received the money receipt for the same. That there was no outstanding due against the complainant as per the bill of the O.Ps in the above months. That unfortunately the complainant received the bill for the month of January, 2016 which shows that the total bill amount was Rs 51,078/- (Fifty one thousand and seventy eight) out of which the bill for the month of January is Rs 266.10/- and the arrear amount with O.Ps company. He became astonished that though he had not single arrear amount with O.Ps company how it became possible. So immediately the complainant met the OP No. 1 and put his grievance before him but the OP No. 1 assured him to correct his bill in the next month. Still the bill of the complainant was not corrected by the O.Ps. The complainant made the other O.Ps and put forth his grievance before them. The complainant’s concerned advocate has also issued a legal notice on 28.07.2016 to the O.Ps to solve his problem but no action had been taken by them.
Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
1. To direct the O.Ps for the correction of the bill of the complainant and deduction Rs 50,812/- from the bill of the complainant.
2. To direct the O.Ps to pay Rs 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, unnecessary harassment, and cost of the litigation.
3. Other reliefs which shall be deemed fit by the learned Forum.
The documents filed by the complainant in the shape of the Xerox copies:-
1. The electricity bill issued by NESCO utility Vide dt. 05.01.2016- 1 sheet.
2. Money receipts issued by NESCO utility such as 22.12.2015 and 26.01.2016- 2 sheets.
3. Postal AD and receipts of registration- 1 sheet.
On the contrary the O.Ps have filed their written version regarding the maintainability of this complaint which has been severely challenged. The O.ps have also contended that on dt. 16.10.2015 the unit of consumer bearing consumer No. T.T- 24,688 (I) recorded in the name of Bhaskar Chandra Panda was verified. During verification it was detected that, in the same premises there is another single phase consumer bearing under domestic category having. To ascertain the details of the domestic connection, the electric bill of the said connection was asked for from the representative who was present there and had identified himself that he was the son of Sri Bhaskar Chandra Panda and produced the bill of the domestic consumer bearing No. TT- 1757. In present situation it is detected that the domestic consumer under dispute was bearing No. TT- 1418 recorded in the name of Sri Bijaya Kumar Panda, S/o Bhaskar Chandar Panda. In addition to this, it was also detected that, the Industrial Unit is availing power supply from domestic connection for his light load and a motor of ½ HP. Due to such wrong bill, SVR was prepared against the domestic connection of Sri Bhaskar Chandra panda bearing Consumer No. TT- 1757. After preparation of SVR, a copy of the same was served and asked for acknowledgement on the SVR. But the domestic consumer did not give his acknowledgement and also did not receive the copy of SVR. However, basing on SVR, assessment proceeding was initiated against the domestic consumer and Provisional Assessment order was passed on dt. 17.10.2015 & served through concerned J.E. But the complainant did not take any step for which Final Assessment order was passed on dt. 22.12.2015 amounting to Rs 50,801.88/- and due to nonpayment of the same was claimed in the month of January, 2016, the coercive action has taken against the complainant. Hence they have prayed for the dismissal of this complaint.
The O.Ps have filed their relevant documents in the shape of Xerox copies as follows:-
1. Sport verification report on dt. 16.10.2015- 1 sheet.
2. Provisional penalty assessment order vide No. 1146 dt. 17.10.2015- 1 sheet.
3. Format U/s 126 (2) of the Electricity Act dt. 17.10.2015- 1 sheet.
4. Copy of the final assessment order dt. 22.12.2015- 1 sheet.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint as well as the documents, filed by the complainant. We have found that the complainant has executed power to the concerned advocate to conduct the case on behalf of him. The concerned advocate has not affixed the advocate’s welfare ticket on the upper portion of the said Vakalata Nama which he had filed, rather he has under taken that he would affix the same as soon as the said ticket would be available, but he has failed to explain the Forum for what reason he has not affixed the said ticket on Vakalata Nama. After undertaking and stricture made by the Forum he has failed to affix the said ticket till the date of hearing. Hence the Vakalata Nama filed by Mr. N. P. Behera, advocate is here by rejected.
The complainant has also failed to put his signature or initial on the right side of the complaint. In absence of his signature Mr. N. P. Behera, advocate, has put his signature only. But it is standing settled principle of law the complainant should put his signature first and the concerned advocate should have identified the signature of the complainant. But both the advocates and the complainant have failed to put their signature and identified the complainant. Hence the complaint is not maintainable.
The complainant has failed to describe the date of cause of action. So the complaint itself is devoid of merit. The settled principle of law is that why there is no cause of action there is no case. So after a long discussion we have adjudicated that the cause of action is not there. So the complaint is void one. The OP has also raised the question of Sec 126 of Electricity Act. After verification and long enquiry the competent authority prepared a Provisional Assessment order and the copy of the same was also offered to the consumer (Complainant). But he refused to put his signature and receive the copy on 16.05.2015 at about 7:30. The complainant did not sent any reply to the office of the said notice. Then on 22.11.2015 the O.Ps have served the notice upon the complainant to show cause, but the complainant has failed to receive the notice and sent the reply. But it is found case record that the complainant has defaulted in every respect. Further complainant should have instituted an appeal or the revision against the Dist. Forum but the complainant has done so. The complainant has not preferred any appeal U/s 127 of Odisha Electricity Act.
We have already discussed about the fact of this case in every pros and cons. The complaint has not come to this Forum clean handed. Hence it is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed against the O.Ps having no merit. This order is carry out within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 19th November, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
