Orissa

Cuttak

CC/172/2021

Sadei Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO,Electrical,TPCODL - Opp.Party(s)

B Satapathy

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.172/2021

 

Sadei Swain,

S/o –Late Pandaba Swain,

At/Po-Nuapatana,Via-Tigiria,Dist-Cuttack.            ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

                  S.D.O (Electrical),TPCODL,Athagarh,

                          At/po-Athagarh,Dist-Cuttack.                                                     ...OPP.Parties

 

Present:      Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing :  22.10.2021

   Date of Order: 10.02.2023

 

For the complainant:     Mr. B Satapathy,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.           :        None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he is a consumer of the O.P having consumer no.DBE 489 corresponding to new Account no.04165037.  As he has obtained electrical connection to his residential house and was paying the electricity tariff, since because he got a bill from the O.P in higher tariff, he had represented the O.P in that connection but no action was taken by the O.P in that aspect.  His electrical  line was disconnected also. Inspite of his persuasions his electrical connection was not restored by the O.P, rather he was insisted upon to deposit the arrear outstanding electricity dues.  Being aggrieved, the complainant had issued pleader’s notice to the O.P.           The complainant was going on paying the energy dues, but the electrical connection as provided to his house was arbitrarily disconnected and he was not issued even any notice of disconnection.  It is for this, the complainant has filed this case claiming from the O.P a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards his loss of business, further a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and also a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

          Together with the complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of certain documents including copy of his pleader’s notice in order to prove his case.

2.       Having not contested this case, the O.P has been set exparte vide order dt.18.5.2022.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Point No.ii.

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

After going through the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition together with the copies of documents as annexed to his complaint petition it is noticed that he had submitted copies of money receipts showing payments of his energy dues on 30.3.2006 to the tune of Rs.200/-, on 23.9.2006 to the tune of Rs.250/- and on 29.10.2006 to the tune of Rs.228/-.  He has also filed copy of his electrical bill vide Annexure-2 wherein a sum of Rs.11,237.55p is shown as outstanding.  As per his copy of  letter addressed to the O.P vide Annexure-3, it is noticed that he has requested the O.P through his said letter to rectify the wrong energy bill as provided to him.  The pleader’s notice sent on behalf of the complainant to the O.P vide Annexure-1 is intended to restore electrical supply to the residential house of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said legal notice.

Now the question here in this case is that if there was infact any exorbitant bill provided to the complainant by the O.P which needs actual rectification.  As it is noticed that there is no allegation about the meter reading and functioning which is there in the house of the complainant to record the energy consumptions at the house of the complainant.  When the meter is perfect and thereby the energy as consumed by the complainant therefore is recorded perfectly, so the allegation about the exorbitant bill with higher tariff as made by the complainant is incorrect  The complainant has also not stated that as to on which date his electrical supply was disconnected by the O.P  from his residential house. This Commission thus has come to the conclusion here in this case that the outstanding arrear amounts of energy dues when was not paid by the complainant, the O.P had thereby disconnected the electrical connection as provided to the residential house of the complainant.  Thus, by doing so it can never be said here in this cse that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P as alleged against him by the complainant. This point thus goes against the complainant.

            Points no.i& iii.

       From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant

is found to be not maintainable and  the complainant is therefore not

                        entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

       Case is  dismissed exparte against  the O.P and  as regards to the

facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

       Order pronounced in the open court on the 10^th  day of February,

2023  under the seal and signature of this Commission.                       

                                                                                       

                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                               President

         

 

                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                         Member