C.C. No.164/2022

Siba Prasad Sahoo,

S/o. Late Banshidhar Sahoo,

Vill.- Bidyadharpur,

P.O.- Nuapada,

P.S.- Tirtol,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.………Complainant

1. The Executive Engineer, TPCODL,

Electrical Division, Paradeep,

At/P.O.- Paradeep garah,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.

2. The S.D.O., Electrical, TPCODL,

Electrical Sub-Division, Tirtol.

3. The D.M.C., Electrical, TPCODL,

Electrical Sub-Division, Tirtol.

4. The Junior Manager, Electrical (Commerce),

TPCODL, Electrical Section, Tirtol,

Sl. No.2 to 4 are At/P.O./P.S.- Tirtol,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur. …..… Opposite parties

For Complainant………..Mr. A. Prusty, Advocate

For Opposite Parties………..Executive Engineer, PED, Paradeep

ORDER BY HON’BLE MEMBER- MRS. M. SWAIN:

                                                                                             JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- along with cost of litigation of Rs.20,000/- by quashing the unlawful demand amount and P.V. report and reconnection electric to the huller shed without restoration charges and other amounts out of the penal charges”.

            Brief fact of the case is that deceased Bansidhar Sahoo was the consumer of the TPCODL (who are opposite parties) having consumer No.80000900672 and he was managing a rice huller for his livelihood and paid his electric bill regularly. After his death one of his sons namely Siba Prasad Sahoo who is complainant has been managing the rice huller and paid the electric bills regularly to the opposite parties.

            On 28.4.2022 at about 12.30 P.M., a squad team visited the huller shed and inspected the installed meter and tactfully taken signature of the complainant in a blank P.V. report. On 11.5.2022 opposite party served a demand notice in the name of the deceased consumer Bansidhar Sahoo through Regd. Post and illegally imposing fine of Rs.1,37,365/-. The opposite parties have not proved that the complainant committed any fault in the installed meter and not adopted any hooking for running of the rice huller and imposing fine of Rs.1,37,365/- against the deceased consumer Bansidhar Sahoo is illegal in the eye of law. On 18.6.2022 the opposite parties disconnected the power supply of complainant without serving the acknowledgment of disconnection. On 24.6.2022 complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties through his advocate to reconnect the P/S and settle the matter by Regd. Post but all in vain.

            Complainant submitted evidence on affidavit in support of his pleadings.

            Notice was issued on 13.7.2022 and the opposite parties appear by Executive Engineer, PED, Paradeep and filed a time petition and prayed for 30 days time to submit written version on 28.7.2022 but did not submit the written version.

            As per evidence affidavit submitted by the complainant, in course of misc case hearing vide misc case No.137/2022 this Commission passed order as “Heard the learned counsel for the complainant ex-parte. Perused the documents found on record supported with affidavit. Considering the facts and circumstances, issue notice to the opposite parties to file objection if any on 28.7.2022, but in the meantime the opposite parties are directed to immediately reconnect the power supply to the Huller shed bearing Consumer No.80000900672 of the complainant.”

            The order was not obeyed by the opposite parties, hence complainant filed E.A. No.22/2022. In the Execution Application this Commission passed an order in presence of opposite parties on 24.02.2023 and directed to “the opposite parties to install a prepaid STAND-BY-METER to detect the status of the previous installed meter vide Sl. No.CSC-26291 by way of reconnection”. On 09.3.2023 opposite party installed new prepaid meter vide Sl. No.3017973.

            The deputed meter-reader namely ‘Jyoti Nayak’ has clearly given his opinion on 27.7.2023 that from the date of installation of new stand by meter i.e. from 09.3.2023 to 09.7.2023 on 27.7.2023, the unit varies up to 2.02 unit per month which is negligible in comparison to the old meter and new stand by meter.   

            Heard, perused the documents available on record. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the following issues to be examined by this Commission:

Issues:

1. Whether the complainant is consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice towards the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for?

Issue No.1- Admittedly father of complainant is consumer vide consumer A/c No.80000900672 of opposite parties and who used to run a rice huller in his premises for his livelihood. After death of original consumer, complainant inherits the rice huller and the power supply to it. It is the duty of opposite parties to change the name of the deceased person from the consumer A/c number to the legal heir of the deceased, but they did not do the same. The complainant using his deceased father’s consumer number managed the rice huller for his livelihood. So this issue is decided in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2- As the opposite parties disobeyed the order of this Commission vide misc case No.137/2022 then complainant filed an E.A. No.22/2022 in this Commission. On 24.02.2023 this Commission passed an order in presence of both the parties that opposite parties install a stand-by-meter to detect the status of the old previous meter and accordingly on 09.3.2023 opposite party installed a new meter in the premises of complainant. Meter reader of opposite party Jyoti Nayak has given his opinion on 27.7.2023 that from the date of installation of new stand by meter from 09.3.2023 to 09.7.2023 or 27.7.2023 the unit varies up to 2.02 units per month which is fully negligible in nature. The opposite parties did not give any information regarding old meter whether it is tampered or it works properly or not. The opposite parties imposed a fine of Rs.1,37,365/- on the basis of physical verification on 28.4.2022 that meter has been tampered and manipulated the recorded consumption. Without verifying or examining the existing meter the evidence of the meter reader is the version of the assessing officer. It can only be a case under 135 of OERC Act. If upon inspection of gazette it is found that the user is using electricity unauthorizedly. In this instant case the previous meter and the newly installed meter both have recorded absolute the same reading. So it is crystal clear that there was no unauthorized used of electricity and it is not a case of 135 of Electricity Act., opposite parties squad mention as meter ‘Tamper’ and manipulate the consumption and imposing fine is the negligence on the part of the opposite parties which leads deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this issue decided in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.3- As both the above issues are decided in favour of the complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and considering the benevolent nature of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, we quash the fine amount of Rs.1,37,365/-and direct to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation and Rs.1,000/- as mental agony to the complainant. It is further ordered that opposite parties shall change the name of a deceased consumer A/c in favour of legal heir of the family. The order to be carried out within 45 days from the date of receipt of order. Accordingly the consumer complaint is disposed of.

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 15^th Dec.,2023.