Orissa

Malkangiri

CC/176/2014

Ajay Ray, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub-Divisional Officer (Elect.) - Opp.Party(s)

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/176/2014
( Date of Filing : 11 Nov 2014 )
 
1. Ajay Ray,
S/O Late Arabinda Ray, Asribad Colony Malkangiri, PO/PS/Dist. Malkangiri.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sub-Divisional Officer (Elect.)
SOUTHCO, Malkangiri.
2. Executive Engineer, (Elect.) SOUTHCO,
Malkangiri.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 14 Aug 2015
Final Order / Judgement

 

1. The grievance of the complainant is that he is a consumer of the Opposite Parties vide     consumer No. 7131012F0021 and he was regularly paying the Electricity bills of the O.Ps. But surprisingly during October, 2014 he has received an exaggerated bil of August-September, 2014 demanding a sum of Rs. 29,833.99 which is extremely high in compare to the previous consumptions and such demand by the O.Ps  without any reason and thus exaggeration has caused him financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment Hence he has approached this forum for the protection and relief as per his prayer.

2.  The O.Ps in their counter and additional counter filed by their Counsel submitted that the complainant has got the bill of Rs. 29,834/- for the billing period of 32 months from January-2012 to September-2014 on provisional basis but on receipt of notice from the Forum they have revised the bills which came to Rs. 16,225/- thereby no deficiency of service, damage or harassment in any way caused to the complainant at any time.

3.  From the written version submitted by the O.Ps, it is admitted fact that the O.Ps have charged Rs. 29,834/- in the bill of October, 2014 which definitely caused harassment to a poor Consumer and finally finding no other alternative he approached this forum by spending his valuable time and money for redressal of his grievances.

4.  In support of his case the complainant has filed the copy bill of Feb-March,2014 marked herein as Exibit C/1, the copy of bill for the month of April-May, 2014 marked herein as Exibit C/2, copy of bill for the month of Jun-July, 2014 Marked herein as Exibit C/3, Copy of paid receipts 28.04.2014 marked herein as Exibit C/4, copy of paid receipt dated 23.06.2015 marked herein as Exibit C/5, copy id paid bill dated 21.08.2014 marked herein as Exibit C/6, copy of bill dated 17.10.2014 marked herein as Exibit C/7 and copy bill dated 27.10.2014 marked herein as Exibit C/8 and copy of bill dated 13.11.2014 for October 2014 marked herein as Exibit C/9.

5.  The Opposite Parties have not filed any paper in support of their case.

6.  It is disputed that the Opposite Parties have charged Rs. 29,833.99 vide  their bill dated 27.10.2014. In their additional written version at para-2 the Opposite Parties admitted that the said amount of Rs. 29,833.99 i.e. Rs. 29,834/- is concerning for billing period of 32 months from January, 2012 and Jun-July, 2014. Further on perusal of bi-monthly bills of February-March, 2014, April, May, 2014 and Jun-July, 2014 at exibitC/1,C/2 &C/3 there was no arrear dues againanst the Complainant. Hence it is crystal clear that through there was no arrear was no arrear dues stands against the complainant till August-September, 2014, but the Opposite Parties have raised the bill in the month of October, 2014 vide bill dated 17.10.2014 at Exibit C/7 for Rs. 29,704.82, Rs. 29,833.99 i.e. Rs. 29,834/- as per the bill dated 27.10.2014 at Exibit C/8 and the bill dated 13.11.2014 of October,2014 for Rs. 29,905/- showing therein Rs. 29,833.99 as arrear. In view of Section 56(2) of Indian Electricity Act, this demand of the respondent is wrong and illegal as no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such became first due. In the present complaint, the respondent was having right to demand  the said amount from the complainant within two years i.e. from January -2012 to December-2014 but the demand was raised by the respondent in October as per Exibit C/7, C/8 and C/9 which is patently wrong and illegal and we set-aside the same. The complainant is not liable to pay Rs. 29,834/- which comes to Rs. 16,225/- on revision by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed to issue fresh bill deducting Rs. 29,834/- which comes on revision by the Opposite Parties to Rs. 16,225/- and further compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only for rendering deficient service, causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and pay Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Complainant within 45 days on receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction U/S 25 & 27 of CP Act, 1986.

The complainant petition allowed.

Delivered in open forum on this the 14th August,2015.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya]
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.