DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                    C.C.NO. 60 OF 2022

                                                                                              Date of Filing  : 28.10.2022

                      Date of Order :  31.01.2023

Kalu Charan Patra

At/PO- Barakhama,

PS- Balliguda

District- Kandhamal, 762110              …………………….. Complainant.

Versus.

1. S.D.O. Electrical, TPSODL

            Electricity Office, Electric Sahi,

            Balliguda, Kandhamal,

            Odisha, 762103

2.  Managing Director,

            TP Southern Odisha Distribution Limited,

            Kamapalli, Courtpeta Berhampur,

            Ganjam, Odisha, 760004

3. The President,

            Grievances Redressal Forum, Berhampur,(TPSODL)

            Near De Paul School, Engineering School Road,

            Berhampur- 760010                            …………………….. Opp. Parties

            Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                             Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member.

For the Complainant:

For O.P. No.1  : Self

For O.P. No.2 & 3 : Sri Harischandra Maharana,Advocate

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President

Complainant Kalu Charan Patra has filed this case U/s. 35 of the CP Act 2019.,  alleging  deficiency of  service  and unfair trade practice  for providing him an energy bill and claiming a sum of Rs. 2612.08 under sundry charges and not rectifying the erratic bill in-spite of repeated approaches and praying therein for a direction to the OPs to delete the amount of Rs. 2612.08 Ps from his energy bills and pay a sum of Rs. 20000/- towards mental-agony and harassment.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs bearing consumer no. 292301280016. The petitioner was paying his bills regularly as per actual meter reading and the petitioner noticed that a sum of Rs. 2612.08 ps has been included in the energy bill for the month of July 2022 under the head sundry charges. The bill was served on the complainant on 15.08.2022 and very promptly he made an application on 17.08.2022 to SDO, Balliguda, TPSODL for correction of his bill, requesting him to provide the sundry charges. It was intimated to him that the amount has been billed taking the average for the period from February 2019 to April 2021 on the basis of the average meter reading for a period of 6 months starting from the installation of the new meter from May 2021 to October 2021. After receipt of the information he intimated the OP that the power supply to the newly constructed shop rooms were not in use for the period from January 2019 to July 2021 for which fixed charges were paid to the OPs company and from 1^st August 2021 one shop room was given on rent to one Rajiv Mallick and the second one has been occupied by him from August 2021 and the average unit is 30 to 35 unit per month even though complaint was lodged with the OP No. 1 he did not redress the grievance for which he lodged complaint to OP No. 2 and subsequently on OP No. 3. Since his grievance was not redress by the OP No. 3 within 60 days from the date of filing of the grievance petition and the OP issued a disconnection notice finding no other alternative he has filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2. After receipt of notice the OP appeared in person before this Commission and subsequently engage advocate H.C. Maharana in the case, even though the OP appeared in the case and in spite of repeated opportunity granted to them they preferred not to challenge the allegation raised against them in any manner. Therefore the petition proceeded to disposed off this case on its own merit.
3. The complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of the acknowledgement for receipt of application issued by Asst. Engineer (Electrical) TPSODL, Balliguda on dated 17.08.2022, copy of the energy bill for the month of June and July 2022, copy of the rent agreement with Rajib Mallick, copy of the sundry adjustment cover sheet issued by TPSODL, copy of the e-mail issued by the complainant on different dates to the OPs and has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit.
4. The only point for adjudication of the case is whether the OPs are justified in raising and demand of Rs. 2612.08 NP under the heading sundry charges is justified or not ?

As per the statement provided to the complainant by the OP No. 1 it is seen that this amount has been charge for the period from February 2019 to April 2021 on the basis of the average meter reading for a period of 6 months starting from the installation of new meter that is from May 2021 to till October 2021. This provision is applicable for a consumer only when the old meter is declared defective by following due procedure of law. In the instant case the meter was in perfect running order as seen from the energy bills for the period from the previous bills. The energy bills provided to the complainant have not recorded any meter reading as there was no consumption and a sum of Rs. 60.00 only been charged towards minimum fixed charge. Since the previous was not defective and there is nothing on record to show that the meter was defective charging of energy charges on the basis of average of 6 month after installation of a new meter is not applicable in this case. The complainant in support of his case filed the rent agreement which is not disputed by the OPs in any manner. Besides the complainant in his evidence has clearly stated that the room has been provided on rent to one Rajib Mallick for the purpose of opening Jana Seva Kendra from 1^st August 2022 which stands un-controverted, un-challenged and un-rebutted, so, it is crystal clear from the documents on record that charging of Rs. 2612.08Np under the head sundry charges in the energy bill for the month of July 2022 is completely illegal and is against the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 and rules and regulation made there under and the action of the OPs is not in consonance with the prevailing law of the land governing the supply and distribution of electricity.

5. As a case of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment is made out against the OPs, they are liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss and harassment sustained by him and hence the order.

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No. 3. The OP No. 1 & 2 are made liable for causing deficiency in service, practicing un-fair trade practice and causing harassment to the complainant. The OPs  are directed to delete a sum of Rs. 2612.08Np from the energy bill of the complainant from the bill for the month of July 2022 and revised all the energy bill accordingly and provide a fresh and correct bill to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, the OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards deficiency in service and un-fair trade practice and harassment caused to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. The order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order, if the order is not complied within 30 days.

                                                    Computerized & corrected by me.

         I Agree

     MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 31st day of January 2023 in the presence of the parties.  

     MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT