Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The  unfolded story of the case  of the complainant,  is that  the complainant  is the widow of   Bhima Behera who was consumer of electricity under the OP. It is alleged inter-alia that  after death of Bhima Behera, she was enjoying the electricity. It is further alleged that after  his death, his daughter and her grandson Gajendra Behera were residing in his house and started one Poultry  firm adjacent to the house of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant received a electric bill dtd.23.09.2011 from the OP to pay  a sum of Rs.10,261/-. The complainant alleged that the contract load being 1 KW, without any notice, the OP disconnected the power supply. After  disconnection, the complainant’s grandson  started the poultry firm  due to death of Bhima Behera to earn livelihood. It is also  the case of the complainant that the OP imposed wrong tariff and finding no other alternative, the complaint was filed.

4.           The OP filed the written version  stating that the  bill  was assessed  as per  the tariff under  general purpose category  and accordingly the bill was issued from May,2010 after conversion from domestic category to general purpose. Bhima Behera was  the original consumer and the complainant  and her grandson applied for fresh connection.  They have submitted that they have never assessed under  commercial tariff of  any electric bill to get rid of the case. However, it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

“ Having regard to our aforesaid judgment reflected above since the complaint bears merit the Ops are directed  to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to complainant towards compensation for financial loss sustained by complainant due to dying of birds of her poultry farm due to power cut to case  line by Ops without any prior notice. The disputed bills need revision after taking 3 months continuous meter readings after fixation of new meter. Order compliance needs to be made within one month from the date of communication of this order with reconnection of power supply to case premises.

              Delay in any manner  shall carry Rs.100/- per day payable by the Ops to the complainant.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that aforesaid  order was passed by considering  majority view. Since, one  Member differs from majority order it is assailable.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is discrepancy with regard to  consumer  number   against Grandson of complainant.  According to him, Bhima Behera  is consumer, complainant is his wife but the grandson   of Bhima Behera has a poultry farm to which there is disconnection of power supply. He submitted that  Gajendra Behera is not consumer. The question of cause of action does not arose. He further submitted that they have revised the bill as per Govt. Notification  and there is no deficiency  in service on the part of the OP. Learned District Forum ought to have  considered all the facts and law involved in this case. Therefore,  he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside  by allowing the appeal.

7.                Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that  he filed one affidavit stating that She is wife of Bhima Behera. Legal Heir certificate shows that Bhima Behera  died leaving his wife and daughter. He submits son of her daughter  is  the owner of Poultry farm  and he is  the grandson of the complainant. Since, the poultry farm is coming under agriculture Govt. Notification, there should be fresh bill to prepare, so that the complainant will get relief. Therefore, he supports the impugned order.

  8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order .

9.                   It is clear from the legal heir certificate  that the present complainant is the widow of Bhima Behera. It is also appears from   the legal heir certificate that Sabitri Behera  is the married daughter of Bhima Behera and,  complainant and Sabitri’s son Gajendra Behera had started the poultry  farm adjacent to the house of the complainant.  When the daughter’s son had started a poultry farm adjacent to the house of the complainant, it should be treated as one  house of the complainant. The complainant admitted that complainant’s  husband was  a consumer under OP.  Since, it is one house adjacent  to her house, it should be treated as under one consumer number.  Moreover the Govt. Notification  clearly shows that any tariff of domestic category can not be used for general purpose. However, it is admitted by the OP that the outstanding amount has been revised and by interference of State Commission, payment  of Rs.10,261/- has  been made. In the meantime the entire amount has been paid by the respondent.

10.          Now the question arises that due to disconnection of electric line there is loss caused to the complainant for the death of the birds in poultry firm.  According to the learned counsel for the respondent, due to want of electricity  they could not maintain the health of the birds and same  loss to the birds.

11.        Considering all such aspects, we are of the view that  disconnection of electric line   without any valid reason  is absolutely deficiency in service on the part of the OP. However, the bill has been revised and while confirming the impugned order we hereby  modify impugned order direct the OP to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation to the complainant within 45 days of this order failing which entire amount would carry interest  at the rate of 18 % per annum from the date of impugned order till date of payment made.   Rest of the impugned order will remain  unaltered.  

              Thus, the  appeal  being  devoid of merit stands dismissed.

              Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

               DFR be sent back forthwith.