Orissa

Baleshwar

CC/89/2014

Sri Manoranjan Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O, Electricals (R.E.1),Sub-Division, NESCO. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Aug 2014

ORDER

COURT OF THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BALASORE

                                                          ……………….

                                    PRESENT:  Mr. MD. JOBER AHAMED, PRESIDENT

                                                        Mr. SUKUMAR RANA, MEMBER

                                                        Mrs. RASESWARI MOHANTY, MEMBER

                                    C.C No.  89/2014

                                    Sri Manoranjan Nayak, aged 58 years,                     

                                    S/o- Late Muralidhar Nayak,

                                    At- Patpur, P.O/P.S- Rupsa,

                                    Dist- Blasore.                              ...………….Complainant

                                       

                                                         (Vrs)

 

                        S.D.O, Electricals (R.E.1),

                Sub-Division, NESCO,

                Balia, Balasore.                         ……………..Opp. Party

                                                Counsels for the Parties                                                                             

                                    For Complainant:-   Self

                For Opp. Party:-       None

                                    Date of Hearing: -    11.08.2014

                                    Date of Order: -       25.08.2014

                                                                                    

                                              J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

MD. JOBER AHAMED, PRESIDENT

                                   Deficiency-in-service in respect of inflated billings is the allegation arrayed against the Opp. Party.

                                   02. Ventilating the grievance as put forth in the complaint petition, the Complainant alleged that his belated father viz: Muralidhar Nayak was the Consumer of Electricity of Domestic Category having Consumer No. BR-21910 under Electric Section Office, Rupsa and while so he died on 23.04.89 leaving behind him the present Complainant as his son to enjoy his Estate along with Power Supply as a beneficiary Consumer. During the course of enjoyment of Power Supply the Complainant went on paying the energy charges regularly with the Office of the OP- Company and despite that he was served as current bills with demand of an arrear claim amounting to Rs.6020/- which has neither any basis

 nor any justifications. Upon complaint to OP he was assured for it’s rectification. Despite all that the said objectionable arrear amount introduced in the Bill of May 2014. It being so the Complainant attended the Office of OP- Company with such complaint and in turn he was handed over print out where from it was learnt that in the month of February 2009 an amount of Rs.6020/- was inserted as an arrear outstanding against the Complainant’s domestic consumption bill. It being so the Complainant sought clarification from the OP but they failed to substantiate the same. On demand of the Complainant on 02.07.14, OP No.1 refused to go for necessary corrections of the impugned bills. Such demand of OP- Company being illegal, the instant complaint is being preferred by the Complainant for proper redressal.

                                  03. On being noticed the OP, who is representing the OP- Company as a whole in the local jurisdiction of this Forum, did not prefer to contest the case either by his appearance into the case or in filing written version into the case in his defence and consequent there upon he was made set ex-parte for default.

                               04. Having heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the Complainant who is professionally a reputed Lawyer of the area and upon perusal of materials made available on record we do not find any basis, reasons, justifications and legality on the part of the OP- Company in imposing, adding, introducing and demanding all of a sudden an amount of Rs.6020/- in the month of February 2009 as reveals from the Computerised statement of energy bill amounts against the case consumer line which is not only being relied upon by the OP- Company served upon the Complainant but also the Complainant being relied on the said net oriented billing chart filed into the case in his defence. The said Computerised billing chart of case line is marked as Ext-I. On close scrutiny of Ext-I, how the said disputed amount of Rs.6020/- crept into the bill of case line not understood. It seems totally foreign to the Energy bill statement of the Complainant the Ext-I. The natural corollary of this findings leads to irresistible conclusion that non-rectification of disputed bill amount of Rs.6020/- by the OP despite query &  complaint made by the Complainant amounts to deficiency-in-service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP which must have rendered intense mental agonies to Complainant- Consumer. The complaint petition is also supported with an affidavit which ipso-facto constitute sufficient evidence in support of the Complainant. Since such disputed bill amount is not the result of any such assessment of penal bill of any kind and when the claim of the Complainant has not been contested by the OP and was processed ex-parte, the averments made in the complaint filed before this Forum remains un-rebutted, the case of the Complainant stands proved.              

                                              O  R  D  E  R   

                         Keeping In view the judgment reflected above, the complaint bears merit and accordingly it is directed that OP shall waive out the erroneous demand of Rs.6020/- from the Account of the case line of the Complainant as the same is hereby declared void ab-initio and to transfer the case line in the name of  Complainant if he so likes. The aforesaid order needs to carried out by the OP within a month from the date of communication of this order.

                                No order as to costs & compensation in the circumstances of the Case.                                                                                                

                                   Pronounced in the open Court this the 25th day of August 2014 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                    (Md. Jober Ahamed)

                                                                                                                              President

 

 

 

  (Sukumar Rana)                                     (Raseswari Mohanty)        

         Member                                                      Member