DATE OF DISPOSAL: 18.10.2023

(e-Daakhil)

SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:  

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainants have filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against  the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.

2. The complainant is a retired government servant and senior citizen. The electricity connection is stands in the name of the complainant bearing consumer No.: 3422-0222-0279/Old Account No: 9-C-4/863 and A/C No: 12113003907. Due to wanting of maintenance of the residence, the complainant shut down the house since January 2021 after deposit of Rs.4039/- with O.P. After receipt of the bill for the bill period 19.11.2022 the complainant came to know about the disconnection of power supply to his premises and issue of provisional bill for the 905 units from July to October 2022 and the current month amount is Rs.4794.16. The complainant became surprised how the meter is recording units whereas the meter inside the premises is in lock? The O.P. has issued a disconnection notice bearing Notice No.682/19.11.2022 became surprised and came to know about the Arr/Adv is Rs.17,877/-. The complainant approached the O.P. in his office but nobody has given satisfactory reply to the quarry. The O.P. is in violation of the contract and without the implicit consent of the complainant, added such huge amount of Rs.17,877/- to the billing cycling which is tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and disconnected the power supply to the premises in absence of the complainant and for the said act, the O.P. has not taken any consent from the complainant. Now the complainant is not able to carry out the maintenance work of the premises furthermore. At present the O.P. is not allowing to deposits the monthly consumption energy bill amount in both ways i.e. through online and offline to the complainant. The O.Ps is failed to provide guaranteed and overall standard of performance in accordance to OERC (Licenses standard of performance) Regulations, 2004. The O.P. is liable to delete the arrear amount added to the billing cycle and issue fresh bill and liable to pay compensation of Rs.34,000/-and due to such act of the O.P. the circumstances have constrained the complainant to knock the door of this Commission by engaging a legal person by paying huge fees and incurred such amount to redress the complaint and for which the O.P. is liable to pay the litigation costs of Rs.8,500/- to the complainant  in the best interests of justice.

3. The O.Ps filed written version through his advocates. It is stated that it is true the complainant is a consumer of electricity of TPSODL having consumer No. 342202220279 under Electrical Sub-Division No.III. The complainant had deposited the electricity bill of Rs.4037/- for the month of December 2020 on 20.01.2021 and also depositedthe electricity bill of Rs.95/- for the month of Jan’2021 on 18.02.2021. Admittedly the meter of the complainant is inside the premises of the complainant and as the premises of the complainant was lock, the meter reading could not be taken and provisional bill issued to the complainant was arrives to Rs.17,877/- up to the billing period 10/2022. No separate disconnection notice is issued to the complainant; the information regarding disconnection of supply for non-payment of electricity dues is already mentioned in the electricity bill issued to the consumers. Admittedly due to maintenance of residence, the complainant shut down the house. It is the duty of the complainant to intimate the O.P. regarding shut down of the house for maintenance or for any other purpose and to place the meter at a suitable place to which the O.P. always have access. But since the meter is inside the premises of the complainant and the house was under luck, the meter reading could not be taken and the provisional bill arrives to Rs.17,877/- up to the billing period of 10/2022, as such the allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service is not justified. The complainant has not deposited the electricity bill since 18.02.2021 nor approached the O.P. for payment of electricity bill, as such the allegation that the O.P. is not allowing to deposits the monthly consumption bill amount through online and offline is false. If a consumer is having arrear of electricity dues, the system will not allow to deposit the monthly electricity bill only through online. Since the house of the complainant is always under lock and the reading of the meter was not taken which is evident from the consumption of electricity which is not advanced from December 2020 the O.P. disconnected the power supply on 25.05.2022 which was reconnected on 03.02.2023. After reconnection of power supply when the actual consumption of the meter was taken, the bill of the complainant was auto revised by the system and as a consequence Rs.17,820/- deducted from the bill. So, the O.P. has taken effective steps after reconnection of power supply, as such there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. After auto deduction of Rs.17,820/- the complainant deposited Rs.3645/- on 24.02.2023 and thereafter also the premises of the complainant is found lock. Since the present billing dispute has already been resolved by deducting Rs.17,820/- from the bill of the complainant and more so the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.1704/2020 held that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate electricity dispute, as such the present case filed by the complainant needs to be dismissed in the interest of justice.

4. On the dates of hearing the complainant is absent. The advocate for O.P. is present and filed a petition for non-maintainability of proceeding. Heard and on perusal of case record it is apparent that the present O.P. was already declared as exparte on 02.06.2023 and hence the maintainability petition is rejected as the O.P. has filed it by not set-asiding the exparte order in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The op also added an imaginary amount of Rs.17,877/- for consumption of 905 units of electricity in the billing cycle of the complainant’s electricity bill without conducting proper inspection and hearing, whereas the meter was inside the locked premises. It is arbitrariness of the opposite party. Furthermore, the op has not served any notice of disconnection to the complainant in the instant case in accordance to the Reg.184 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2019 and Sec.56 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 prior to disconnection of the power supply to the premises of the complainant. Moreover, the ruling on which the OP has placed reliance is distinguishable and it cannot be made applicable to the case in hand for the purpose of its adjudication.

As far as compensation is concerned in this case, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.34,000/- as compensation towards the loss suffered by him due to negligence, deficient of services, etc., by the OP in the fact, law and circumstances of the case and litigation cost of Rs.8500/- also. However, it can be apparent from the fact of the complaint that, how much pain the complainant being senior citizen was taken at his 80 years of old age to redress the grievance. It became more painful when ‘nobody from the op office has come forward to redress the matter when the complainant approached OP in his office time and again’. It sounds very bad and shameful for all of those who are responsible for customer care of the electricity distribution company in the Berhampur city and redress the grievance of the consumers at sources. The Government of Odisha also made several schemes for the welfare and benefit of the Senior Citizens of the state but the OP made it futile. The declaration and advertisement made by the corporate office of the OP in the larger interest of the consumers at public platform regarding the services provided to the customers’ and the arrangements made for electricity customers’ services now became misleading.

On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

Hence, in the result, we allowed the complaint against the opposite party. The op is directed to pay compensation of Rs.8000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. Further, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tata Power Southern Odisha Distribution Limited (TPSODL) is directed to take disciplinary action against the erring employee of OP who was responsible for causing deficient services to the complainant. And it is also directed to the OP’s company: TPSODL to render appropriate and cordial services by maintaining the State-of-the-Art services to the consumers’ especially Senior Citizen Electricity Consumers of the Ganjam districts in accordance to the provisions laid down by the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission, Odisha.

If the op failed to pay the said decreetal amount, the complainant is at liberty to recover the said amount at the rate of 16% pa in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 from the date of the disconnection of power supply of the premises till actual date of payment.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.

A copy of this judgment be provided to all the electronics and print media to publish the news in the larger interest of the consumers’.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 18.10.2023.