Orissa

Cuttak

CC/79/2021

Saudamini Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO,Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha(TPCODL) - Opp.Party(s)

Self

05 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                    C.C.No.79/2021

 

 

Soudamini Panda,

W/O:Sangram Kesari Panda,

At:Sriram(Kaundi),P.O:Dadhibamanapur,

Via:Bentkar,Dist:Cuttack-754112.                                              ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.       The S.D.O,Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha(TPCODL),

Jagatpur Industrial Estate,

Nehru Colony,Vinayak Nagar,

Cuttack-754021.

 

2.        The C.E.O, Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha,

Head Office-2^nd Floor,IDCO Tower,

Bhubaneswar-751022,Odisha.

 

3.       The Managing Director,

TATA Power, Registered Office

Bombay House 24,Homi Mody Street,

Mumnbai-400 001,India.... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     16.04.2021

Date of Order:   05.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Self.

For the O.Ps  :                      Mr. A.K.Nath,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                                 

            Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she is a consumer of electricity having consumer no.Commerce-02080847.  She wanted a new connection and had applied for the same on 11.2.21 for which she had also paid a sum of Rs.710/-.  The father-in-law of the complainant having refused for the new connection of the complainant, the matter was referred to the counselling centre where father-in-law of the complainant did not turn up.  She lateron decided that instead of her, it should be better that her husband should apply for the new connection and accordingly it was done but that has not materialised for which she has filed her case seeking a compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- from the O.P and also direction to the O.ps to provide her a new connection line. 

She has attached copies of document in order to prove her case.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.   According to their written version, the complainant petition is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.  The complainant has suppressed material facts, her complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.  According to the O.Ps, there is no necessity for the complainant for new electricity connection as she is already a consumer having consumer no.02080847.  In the said consumer account there is still an arrear of Rs.8245/- which is up to July,2021.  Ofcourse they admit about the complainant applying for a new electricity connection on 11.2.21 and to have paid security deposit of Rs.510/- alongwith service connection charge of Rs.200/-.  According to the O.Ps, when their team reached at the premises of the complainant in order to provide a new connection, the father-in-law of the complainant had protested and had raised a strong objection.  He had not allowed the team of the O.Ps to provide the new service connection saying that the ROR stands in his name only. It is for this, no electricity connection could be provided as per the application of the complainant.  The father-in-law of the complainant namely Niranjan Panda had also refused his signature in the affidavit filed by the complainant showing NOC of Niranjan Panda, Harihar Panda and Hrusikesh Panda and has rather submitted that his signature was forged therein.  Accordingly, the O.Ps had intimated the fact to the complainant.  Hence they had prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed with costs.

The O.Ps have filed copies of documents in order to prove their case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issue no.ii.

            Out of the three issues, the issue no.ii being the pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly the complainant had applied for a new electricity connection to her place of stay on 11.2.21 and had paid the necessary money thereof.  The complainant has alleged that even though she had submitted NOC of Niranjan Panda,HJarihar Panda and Hrushikesh Panda, the O.Ps had not provided her a new service connection as desired by her.  To the contrary, the O.Ps have stated that when their team had gone to the place of stay of the complainant, in order to provide the electricity new connection, they were strongly opposed by one Niranjan Panda the father-in-law of the complainant.  The said Niranjan Panda has not disputed about the stay of the complainant Soundamini Panda in the place of occurrence.  The complainant when felt the necessity of a new connection, had applied to the O.Ps and had deposited the necessary fees as required in order to avail the same. The complainant was deprived of being provided with the new service connection of electricity as she desired at her place of stay which is not disputed either by the O.Ps or by the said Niranjan Panda here in this case.  In this context, the complainant has relied upon a pertinent decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Late Dillip represented through LRs Vrs. Satish and others in Criminal Appeal no.818 of 2022 wherein their lordships have held that “electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived.  Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of a failure/refusal of the landlord to issue NOC.  All that electricity supply authority is required to examine it whether the application for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question”.   Accordingly, here in this case, it is noticed that when the place of occupation of the complainant is not in dispute, the O.Ps by not providing her new electricity line as applied by her, were undoubtedly deficient in their service.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

            Keeping in mind the above discussions, it can be concluded here that the case of the complainant is maintainable and she is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by hr.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to provide new electricity connection to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 5^th day of November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                           Member