DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 3rdday of July, 2020
C.D Case No. 74 of 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Madan Charan Swain
S/o Late Babaji Charan Swain
At: Belamala,
Po: Dobal,
Ps: Dhamnagar,
Dist: Bhadrak, Odisha
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. S.D.O, Electrical Division, Dhamnagar
At/Po/Ps: Dhamnagar,
Dist: Bhadrak
2. J.E, Electrical, Dhamnagar,
At/Po/Ps: Dhamnagar,
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri B. B. Biswal, Adv & Others
Counsel For the O.Ps: Smt. G. Pradhan, Dy-Manager (Legal) NESCO
Date of hearing: 18.09.2019
Date of order: 03.07.2020
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.
The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant’s father was a consumer of electricity having his consumer No. 4221-2111-0927. He was consuming the electricity energy in his residence since the time of his consumer ship and paying the dues regularly to the O.Ps. After his demise the complainant also has been enjoying the said electricity energy in his residential premises and paying the dues regularly. The complainant stopped paying the dues on 31.10.2001 as a result of which the O.Ps disconnected the supply from the complainant’s premises. The complainant requested the O.Ps to reconnect the power supply on 21.01.2013 and deposited Rs 11,510/- towards arrear amount and Rs 150/- towards the reconnection charge and obtained money receipt from the O.Ps. The complainant alleged that he along with his family members were staying outside since 2001 to 2013. The O.Ps recorded and prepared the bills on the basis of load factor vide amount Rs 38,000/- which has been imposed upon the complainant. The complainant had also alleged that the payment of Rs 11,500/- has not been adjusted in the arrear billing. Although the complainant availed the service of power supply on 21.01.2013. The complainant has further alleged that he had been paying dues from the date of 21.03.2013 till the date of filing of the complaint. He has also alleged that the O.Ps have illegally imposed the bill amount Rs 38,000/- for the disconnection period 31.10.2001 to 21.01.2013. The complainant has also inform the O.Ps to disconnect his power supply for the period of disconnection. The complainant has further requested the O.Ps to revise and correct the bills and to exempt the alleged illegal imposition of amount Rs 38,000/-. The material fact is that the complainant filed a CD Case before this Forum vide CD Case No. 16 of 2017 but the same was dismissed for default on 16.07.2018.
The cause of action arose on 31.10.2001 for disconnection of the electricity the house of the complainant when the O.Ps reconnection the same and on 16.07.2018 when the previous CD Case No. 16 of 2017 dismissed for default and lastly on 10.11.2018 the O.Ps flatly denied to exempt the previous bill amount Rs 38,000/-, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs.
1. The O.Ps be directed to adjust amount of Rs 11,510/- to which the complainant has deposited against the arrear outstanding till to dt. 31.10.2001 in the present bill.
2. The O.Ps be directed to exempt the amount of about Rs 38,000/- or more or the perfect amount as per calculation vide the alleged bills from the present bill.
3. The O.Ps be directed not to disconnect the power supply to the house of the complainant till disposal of this case.
4. The O.Ps be directed to serve the correct bill to the complainant.
5. The O.Ps be directed to give a penalty of Rs 10,000/- to the complainant against compensation.
6. The O.Ps be directed to give an amount of Rs 5,000/- to the complainant against litigation charges.
7. The O.Ps be directed to give other reliefs as per the best though and direction of this Hon’ble Forum.
Documents filed on behalf of the complainant.
1. Money receipts dt. 21.01.2013.
2. Bill status documents obtained from net process available by Govt.
3. The office copies of application given to the O.Ps.
4. The present money receipts.
5. CD Case No. 16 of 2017 and its order dt. 16.07.2018.
6. Copy of petition No. 16/2017.
The O.Ps have filed their written version as follows that they have raised the question of maintainability. They have also denied all the allegations raised against the O.Ps. The fact is that, the line was never disconnected on 31.10.2001. The complainant family was using electricity from 2001 to 2013 regularly and continuously without payment of any dues. The line was disconnected on 21.01.2013. And after deposit of part payment of arrear amount of Rs 11,510/- and reconnection charges the line was again resorted on the same day. The claim of complainant is that, he was residing outside village is totally false and baseless. No document has been filed to this effect by the complainant in this case. Moreover, the complainant never applied for temporary disconnection of electricity as per regulations. The arrear outstanding against the consumer till December, 2001 is Rs 8,953.80paisa/-. The power supply was disconnected in the month of January, 2013 due to nonpayment of arrear dues which has reached up to Rs 38,703.05paisa/-. After disconnection of electricity the complainant paid Rs 11,510/- towards arrear dues and Rs 150/- towards reconnection charges and a new meter bearing serial No. 029415 was installed in the premises of the consumer and power supply was resorted on the same day i.e. on 21.01.2013. The fact is that due to defective meter the consumer was billed on average basis from December, 2001 to January, 2013. The load factor bill has already been revised based on average meter reading for consecutive three billing periods after installation of the new meter. The bill has already been revised and an amount of Rs 28,077.42 paisa/- have been withdrawn and after revision an arrear of Rs 11,394.53paisa/- is still laying on the consumer. The said bill revision has already been reflected in the energy bill for the month of May, 2018. The bill revision statement was sent to the consumer through local line man but the consumer refused to receive such letter in the month of May, 2018. Again, the bill revision has been sent to the address of the consumer by registered post vide receipt No. RO932530225IN dt. 20.12.2018 and the said letter was duly received by the complainant 26.12.2018. The amount of Rs 11,510/- already paid by the consumer has been included/added in the said bill revision. That, by suppressing all the facts the complainant has failed this case only to avoid the payment of arrear dues of Rs 11,394.53paisa/-. Hence the O.Ps have sought for the dismissal of this complaint.
The O.Ps have filed the following documents (Xerox copies).
1. Counter foil- 1 sheet.
2. Billing statement from 2001 to 2018 of the consumer- 2 sheets.
3. Statement of revision- 1 sheet.
OBSERVATION
We have gone through the complaint, the documents filed by the complainant and the written version, document filed by the O.Ps. We have found that the complainant had filed the CD Case vide No. 16 of 2017 before this Forum. The said CD case was dismissed on 16.07.2018 due to the default of the complainant because he was found absent in this Forum on repeated call on consecutively 3 dates. The complainant instated of preferring an appeal before the higher Forum rather he has initiated this CD Case on 30.11.2018. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in K.K Modi Versus K.N. Modi and others reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573 held as under. This terms can notes that the process of the Court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The Court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation. The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material. Further we rely on the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Sebastian M.D. Vs M.J. Devadas on 13 July, 2012. It was observed that “Pursuing the matter with the opposite party time and again and sending of representations repeatedly do not extend the period of limitation which is a mandatory requirement”. Further we relied on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission New Delhi between M/S. Btm Industries Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 15 January, 2016 wherein it was held that “Since the complainant withheld material fact from this Commission not only while filing this complaint but also during pendency of this complaint, it is not entitled to any relief whatsoever through the process of this Commission. We therefore, need not examine the claims of the complainant on their merit.”
We have also held that the complainant ahs admitted in his complaint that the cause of action of this case arose on 31.10.2001 but he had filed this case on 30.11.2018. According to the CP Act the complainant should have filed this case within two years from the date of cause of action. But in this case the complaint is barred by maximum limitation. Hence this CD Case is not maintainable.
As per the above discussions we have reached at the conclusion that this case is suffering from res-judicata as well as barred by limitation so we are not inclined to allow this complaint. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
In the result, the complaint be and the same is dismissed having no merit against O.Ps without cost and compensation.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 3rd July, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
