Orissa

StateCommission

A/140/2007

Executice Engineer, WESCO - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saumendu Mohanty, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. P.K. Tripathy & Assoc.

05 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ODISHA, CUTTACK
 
First Appeal No. A/140/2007
( Date of Filing : 08 Feb 2007 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District )
 
1. Executice Engineer, WESCO
Bolangir Electrical Disvision, Bolangir.
2. Sub Divisional Officer No.1,
Electrical WESCO, Bolangir.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Saumendu Mohanty,
S/o- Iswar Chandra Mohanty, Engineer Asst. T.V. Relay, Palace Line, Bolangir.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:M/s. P.K. Tripathy & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
Dated : 05 Jan 2023
Final Order / Judgement

                 Heard learned counsel for  the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case     of  complainant, in nutshell   is that the complainant has taken electric connection on his approach  but n the bill was not revised inspite of his request and  excess  amount with interest was not paid back. Hence, the complaint.

4.            The OP  has taken plea that the bills have been revised and the complainant already paid the bill amount upto 12/2005.  Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.                  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   the bill has been already revised that the OP has been  refunded the security deposit with interest. In this regard, they submitted  the documents w.e.f. May,2006 where the amount has been revised and refunded.  Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

6.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

7.                       In view of above submission, since the bill has been revised and the security amount has already been refunded there lies no cause of action to rise.

                     Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside.

                   Appeal is disposed  of accordingly. No cost.

                  Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                    DFR be sent back forthwith.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.