Mr. SARAT CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER
The Complainants have filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is State of Odisha, Represented by the Collector, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the Sub-Divisional Officer, NESCO, Khaira, Balasore, O.P No.3 is the Grievance Redressal Forum, NESCO, Balasore and O.P No.4 is the Managing Director, NESCO, Januganj Golai, Balasore.
2. The case of the Complainants in brief is that the Complainant No.2 has applied for assistance as per Govt. of Odisha Scheme to maintain his livelihood and the same was/is approved by the Chairman, Krushi Sahayak Kendra-Cum-the Collector, Balasore (O.P No.1) and so communicated by the District Agriculture Officer, Balasore vide letter No.2991 on dtd.26.09.2007 and accordingly, State Bank of India, Fatepur Branch has sanctioned the loan and then applied before the Branch Office of O.P No.4 for electrical connection, who has allowed the same vide estimate No.69/08-09, dtd.07.08.2008 of Rs.6,101/- (Rupees Six thousand one hundred one) only and connected the Electricity Vide Consumer No.SK-3226091 (as a Commercial Consumer). But, no suo motu disclosure of information was/is published by the O.Ps yet as per R.T.I Act. At the time of electrical connection, the O.Ps have not disclosed the fact of Agriculture electrical connection to the Complainant No.2, for which he was in dark and after coming to know the fact of the decision of the Govt. in respect to the facilities to the farmers in the event of the Agriculture electrical connection, Complainant No.2 attracted the attention of the licensee and GRF in several occasions within 20.06.2011 to 12.03.2014. But, they did not pay any heed to it and also no order was/is passed by the GRF to that effect till yet. Then without any information to the Complainant No.2, the franchisee of the licensee (O.P No.2) has issued the disconnection notice and also disconnected the electricity on dt.12.06.2012 to the poultry farm of the Complainant No.2 and accordingly, depriving of maintaining livelihood to the Complainant No.2, for which the Complainant No.2 has taken shelter before the Complainant No.1 for redressal of the grievance. So, non-consideration of the grievances of the Complainants by the service provider licensee (NESCO) amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, causing mental agony to the Complainants. The Complainants have prayed for revision of tariff on the basis of tariff for Agriculture sector along with compensation for mental agony and financial loss and litigation cost. Neither the Complainants nor their representative was present at the time of hearing of this case.
3. Though the O.P No.1 has appeared in this case through A.G.P, Balasore, but has not filed his written version. The O.P No.1 is set ex-parte. Neither the O.P No.1 nor A.G.P, Balasore was present at the time of hearing of this case.
4. Written version filed by the O.P No.2 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.2 has further submitted that the Complainant No.2 has applied for availing power supply for commercial purpose for his proposed farm unit. Accordingly, power supply has been effected in commercial tariff after due compliance of all the required formalities having Consumer No.SK-3226091 since 2008. Prior to filing of this case in the Forum, the Complainant No.2 had filed the same case against the O.Ps basing on the same cause of action before G.R.F, Balasore as per Section-42 (5) of I.E Act, 2003, which was dismissed by the learned Forum. Then, the Complainant No.2 neither challenged the order passed by the Hon’ble Forum before Ombudsman nor applied with proper format to change the category. The Complainant No.2 is a default category Consumer since power supply under the jurisdiction of the O.Ps, as a result, the outstanding E.C dues accrued to the amount of Rs.21,792.05ps. (Rupees Twenty one thousand seven hundred ninety two and five paisa) only against his Consumer No.SK-3226091 up to Jan, 2014. Due to non-payment of E.C dues, power supply was disconnected and as per interim order of the Hon’ble Forum vide C.D Case No.46/2014, dtd.09.04.2014, power supply has been restored to the farm of the Complainant No.2 on dtd.11.04.2014 bearing Consumer No.SK-3226091. Thus, the O.P No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the case with a direction to the Complainant No.2 to clear the outstanding arrear electricity bills against his Consumer No.SK-3226091.
5. Though sufficient opportunities were given to the O.Ps No.3 and 4, but they have neither appeared in this case nor filed written version. The O.Ps No.3 and 4 are set ex-parte.
6. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?
(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
7. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. Neither the Complainants nor their representative has participated in the hearing and remained absent on that day. However their pleading remains as it is. On the other hand, O.Ps No.1, 3 and 4 are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. It has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.2 about the maintainability of the case by filing a separate petition claiming the Complainant No.2 is not a Consumer being a commercial Consumer. In his petition, it has been clearly mentioned that cause of action to file this case arose on 01.12.2011, whereas the case has been filed on 09.04.2014. But, on verification of the case record, it shows that this case has been filed on 31.03.2014, which is after lapse of statutory period of 2 years, for which this case is barred by law of limitation as per Section-24 (A) of C.P Act, 1986. The same reads as follows:- “The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen”. There is no separate petition filed for condonation of delay. So, when this case is barred by limitation, the case could not be proceeded further.
8. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is barred by law of limitation, for which this case is not maintainable in this Forum and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.2 and on ex-parte against the O.Ps No.1, 3 and 4, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 8th day of August, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
