Date of filing:- 01/02/2018.
Date of Order:-27/12/2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 08 of 2018
Sushama Hota, W/o Dhruba Charan Hota, aged about 58(fifty eight) years, R/o Bargarh, Sakti Nagar, Ward No.11(eleven), Po/Ps and Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Sub-Divisional Officer, WESCO, Bargarh Ward No. 11(eleven), Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri C.D.Jal, Advocate with associate Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri P.K.Acharya, Advocate with associate Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.27/12/2019. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Fats of the case;-
In pursuance to the provision U/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986 the complainant has preferred to file the case against the O.P. on an allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service on the ground stated hereunder.
The case of the complainant is that he being a consumer of the Opposite Party vide his Consumer No-DOM-41-45/28A(New-5121160035) is consuming the electricity energy and had been paying the bill thereto, but suddenly to her surprise was provided with an inflated demand amounting to Rs.93,542/-(Rupees ninety three thousand five hundred forty two)only on Dt.12.01.2018 along with a disconnection Notice in case he fails to pay the same within three days of the said Notice against the bill given to her and also prior to that was issued with bills amounting to Rs.77,832/-(Rupees seventy seven thousand eight hundred thirty two)only and 79,545/-(Rupees seventy nine thousand five hundred forty five)only and a notice was served on her in the month of December 2016.
In furtherance to her case on receipt of those said bills she has complained before the Opposite Party in writing on Dt.15.12.2016. and on Dt 14.03.2017 but to no effect and subsequent to those bill she was issued with a bill to the tune of Rs.4,85,888/-(Rupees four lakh eighty five thousand eight hundred eighty eight)only but as per her the actual amount was only Rs.44,825/-(Rupees forty four thousand eight hundred twenty five)only and further he has paid Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only on Dt18.03.2017 and on Dt 31.03.2017 Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only against the amount Rs.44,825/-(Rupees forty four thousand eight hundred twenty five)only so as per her is supposed to pay Rs.37,825/-(Rupees thirty seven thousand eight hundred twenty five)only but instead of deducting the amount paid by her she has been served with another bill amounting to Rs.94,562/- on Dtd.18.01.2018, thus being aggrieved with such deficient act and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party, has filed the case claiming the cause of action on Dt 12.01.2018 and on Dt.18.01.2018 with a prayer to direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only towards the compensation towards compensation for her mental agony and to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as litigation expenses also prayed to issue direction to the Opposite Party to receive Rs.37,825/-(Rupees thirty seven thousand eight hundred twenty five)only. And in support of her such claim has relied on the following Documents:-
Letter Dtd.15.12.2016 and Dtd.14.03.2017 and the disconnection Notice Dtd.12.01.2018.
Having gone through the Complaint petition, the documents filed along with the same and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and Notice was served on the Opposite Party to appear before the Forum and to reply and accordingly he appeared through his advocate and filed his version.
The contention of his version, are all denial to the case of the Complainant besides that also has stated therein that a defective meter was found in the connection of the Complainant for which an amount of Rs. 4,85,088/-(Rupees four lakh eighty five thousand eighty eight)only had raised against the bill of the Complainant for one month in September 2011 so on getting information from the Complainant the same was replaced with a new one in the month of January 2015, further it has made averments that subsequently the Complainant has filed a grievance petition before the GRF Burla vide GRF case No-404 of 2015 wherein the Opposite Party agreed with the allegation and also agreed for revision of the same and accordingly the GRF passed an order on Dt.30.01.2016 directing the Opposite Party to revise the said inflated bill from November 2011 to April 2015 accordingly the Opposite Party revised the bill and issued her with corrected bill of Rs.54,865/-(Rupees fifty four thousand eighty hundred sixty five)only deducting an amount of Rs.4,34,430/-(Rupees four lakh thirty four thousand four hundred thirty)only from the total amount of Rs 4,85,888/-(Rupees four lakh eighty five thousand eighty hundred eighty eight)only up to April 2915 and subsequently thereafter issued him a bill amounting to Rs.63,310/-(Rupees sixty three thousand three hundred ten)only in the month of February 2016 inclusive of an arrear dues for subsequent period after the revision was made and subsequently thereafter the bill Dt.18.01.2018 for an amount of Rs.94,565/-(Rupees ninety four thousand five hundred sixty five)only. Hence has claimed that he has performed his duty and is not liable for any action under the provision of the Act as has not committed any deficiencies of service or causing any mental agony and pain to the Complainant hence has prayed to dismiss the case.
Having gone through the Complaint petition, its supporting documents and the version and on hearing the respective counsels of the parties the following issues have cropped up before us for proper adjudication of the case as follows:-
Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in rendering service to the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief ?
Firstly while dealing with the issue as to whether the Opposite Partyis deficient in rendering service, in this regard we dealt with the matter with utmost care and having gone through the entire materials available in the record, it reveals therein that from the very inception Opposite Party has been found to be deficient in performing it’s duty properly for which the Complainant has agitated her grievance before him for several time but he has not taken care of, for which he has to knock the door of the GRF as has been unfolded by the Opposite Party itself in it’s version and also has admittedly issued with her a new revised bill ,but then also he has not taken care of the further payments made by the Complainant for an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only on Dtd.18.05.2915, and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as part payment as such the Complainant has agitated the dispute before the Forum for the redressal of her grievance with regard to the amount of bill issued with her afresh ,so taking these materials in to consideration we are of the view that the Opposite Party has not taken care of his duties properly which amounts to deficiencies of service coupled with unfair trade practice in accordance with the Consumer protection Act 1986, hence our answer is assertive to the case of the Complainant.
Secondly while dealing with the Issue No.2(two) with regard to the claim of the Complainant it reveals from the record that the Opposite Party has arbitrarily issued her with disconnection notice without going details of the account of their own documents to verify if any amount has been paid after the revised bill was issued to her or during the pendency of the grievance petition filed by the Complainant before the GRF Burla, which has caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant thus our view is expressed in favor of the complainant ,as such our Order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Party is directed to issue a fresh bill to the Complainant after duly deducting Rs.17,000/-(Rupees seventeen thousand)only the payments update made by her and on the basis of actual consumption of the electricity energy made by her for preceding three months and also further directed to pay her an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only in lieu of her mental agony and Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only towards her litigation expenses within thirty days of receipt of the Order in default of which suitable punitive measure would follow in accordance with the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 .
In the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party and being pronounced in the Open Forum the Case is disposed off to-day i.e on Dt 27.12.2019.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W).
Uploaded by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant, Bargarh.
