Orissa

Sundargarh

CC/23/2022

Bibekananda Bohidar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub-Divisional Officer, Electrical (TPWODL), Sundargarh - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.K. Hati, Adv. & Associates

23 Mar 2023

ORDER

     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: SUNDARGARH-1

        CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 23 of 2022

Bibekananda Bohidar, aged about 58 years,

S/o: - Late Radhakanta Bohidra,

Ro: - Mohantypara,

Ps: - Town,

Dist: - Sundargarh, Pin- 770001.                     ….        ….        ….        ….               .Complainant.

Versus

Sub-Divisional Officer,

At/Po: - Sundargarh, Ps: - Town,

Dist: - Sundargarh.                                           ….       ….         .…        .….        .Opposite Parties.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                           : - Sri P.K. Hati, Adv. & Associates.

For the OP No. 1 & 2                           : - Sri N.R. Nandi, Adv. & Associates.

 

Date of filing               : 12.08.2022

Date of Argument       : 23.02.2023

Date of Judgment       : 23.03.2023

Date of Order: 23.03.2023

Present

         1. Sri Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President.

                                 2. Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

Presented by, Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the complainant is that the complainant is a permanent resident of place depicted in the cause title and further, the OP is the official under TPWODL, Sundargarh providing electrical service to the consumer which is being located in the cause title. Further, the said consumer numbers vide 812122020050 stands recorded in the name of the father of the complainant and the complainant used to enjoy the electricity. The complainant is the legal heir of Late Radha Kanta Bohidar and is a beneficiary, he is a consumer of the OP. The complainant used to pay the electricity bill regularly to the OP. Few years back when the concerned meter became defective, the complainant deposited the challan and the departmental authority of OP replaced the said meter. After that also every month concerned authority of the OP used to check the said meter and used to issue bill. Without any negligence the complainant use pays the said bills. The authority of the OP never made any sort of allegations regarding the malfunctioning of the said meter. The said meter was being installed and sealed by the concerned authority. But surprising enough the OP appeared in absence of present complainant and taken away the said electric meter when neither the complainant nor any of his family members were present at their home. On dtd 10^th December 2021 the OP appeared and imposed a fine of Rs. 92977/- in his provisional assessment order on the allegation of the mal functioning and tempering of the electric meter. The electric meter is being installed and affixed with the electrical seal over it by the OP. Any sort of tempering needs to breaking up the seal and the said meter cannot be tempered by any non-technical person. It can only be tempered by the electrical experts. But the dark episode is that when the persons who allege that they are deployed by electrical department simply saw the electrical meter in a daily way and imposed the fine although the seal of the electric meter is intact. The OP never informed the complainant regarding the mal functioning of the said electric meter and simply thrust the said provision assessment order regarding tempering the electric meter and imposed the fine which is unhealthy for law. The act of serving an erroneous, arbitral and unilateral bill of Rs. 92977/- threatening with the dire consequences of making electrical disconnection of the residential house of the complainant is a perfect epitome of violation of consumer right, breach of contract unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and causing mental and physical agony and harassment to the complainant is poor man for which the OP is liable to indemnify the complainant. After the installation of new meter the amount of bills remain same as the earlier bills, before the installation of the new meter.
2. The version of the O.P is that this Hon’ble Commission, while admitting the case of the complainant, has been pleased to passed an ex-parte interim order dt. 26.08.2022 directing the OP not to disconnect the power supply to the complainant’s premises till the disposal of case failing which the OP is liable to pay compensation for violation of the order. In obedience to the aforesaid direction of this Hon’ble Commission, the OP has not disconnected the power supply of the complainant even though huge arrear is outstanding against the complainant and also, he is not paying the current electricity dues. The complainant by suppressing the material facts, managed to get an ex-parte Interim Order from this Hon’ble Commission and by taking advantage of aforesaid Interim order of this Hon’ble Commission, he is not making payment of huge electricity dues (Assessment Penalty Amount) pending against him and the OP is unable to take action against him. The Complainant had filed a case in PLA Sundargarh bearing PLA Case No. 7 of 2022 on the self-same issue and while the matter was pending for conciliation before the PLA, the complainant approached the Ltd. Commission and filed this present case and while the pendency of the matter in PLA, the complainant obtained an ex-parte Interim Order in his favour from this Ltd. Commission in order to avoid payment of the huge arrears pending against him. The complainant has filed the present case with all ulterior motives and is taking advantage of Interim Order of this Hon’ble Court neither paying arrear nor the current dues. The assessment proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding as observation by the Hon’ble Apex Court in UP Power Corp. Ltd. V. Anish Ahmed supra case and any person aggrieved against such proceeding after passing of the Final Assessment Order may approach to the authority established U/S 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Any person aggrieved by a Final Assessment Order made U/S 126 of the Act may within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fees as may be specified by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission to an appellate authority as may be prescribed. As per the sec. 163 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulation 93 of the OERC Distribution (condition Supply) Code 2019, the vigilance squad of TPWODL conducted a general inspection (Dt. 08.12.2021, vide intimation no. W0152908) of the electrical installation, in respect of the Complainant, bearing consumer no. 81212202-0050. In course of this inspection, unauthorized use of electricity was observed (Meter Tamper) and the consumer was provisionally assessed for a period of one year for 6912 additional units, to the extent of Rs. 92,977/-. The complainant was asked to file objection if any, within seven days from receipt of such provisional assessment order and personally appear before the assessing officer for being heard personally on 17.12.2021. After careful consideration of the reply given by the complainant and examining the relevant documents available on record, the assessing officer made a Final Assessment Order (TPWODL ENF F-04, Notice No. 12, Dt. 08.01.22) amounting to Rs. 46,488/- thereby requesting the consumer to make the payment within 15 days failing which the concerned authorities shall be constrained to disconnect the power supply of the premise in question U/S 172(1) of OERC (Conditions of Supply), 2019. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the case of the complainant has no merit and liable to be dismissed at the outset on maintainability grounds.
3. From the above discussion it is found that the complainant had filed a case in PLA Sundargarh bearing PLA Case No. 7 of 2022 on the self-same issue and while the matter was pending for conciliation before the PLA, the complainant approached the Commission by suppressing the material facts and while the pendency of the matter in PLA, the complainant obtained an ex-parte Interim Order in his favour from this Commission in order to avoid payment. For the same cause of action, the complainant has filed two cases by suppressing material facts. The complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hand, accordingly the case as well as the IA case bearing No. 1 of 2022 are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 23^rd day of March, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.

 

I agree.           

                                                                                                                                           

Dr. Ramkanta Satapathy, President                                          Sadananda Tripathy    

     Member

                                                Dictated and corrected by me

 

                                                              Sadananda Tripathy, Member