Orissa

Rayagada

CC/100/2021

Rama Krushna Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Excutive Engineer Electrical - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

C.C.CASE  NO.__100_______/2021                                    Date.  23 .9. 2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

 

Sri Rama  Krushna Mohapatra, S/O: Late  Neela Kantho Mohapatra, Main Road, Po:Kasipur, Dist:: Rayagada.  (Odisha).                                     

Consumer No. 05-D45/KSP & New account No. 311202360030 …Complainant.

 

Versus.

 

1. The  Executive  Engineer, Electrical Division, Rayagada.
2. .The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Sub-division, Therubali, Dist: Rayagada.
3. The Jr. Engineer, Electrical Section, Kasipur, Dist: Rayagada.

… Opposite parties.

 

 

For the Complainant:- Self..

For the  O.Ps:- Sri  Jagadish  Panda, Advocate.

 

JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non revision of Electrical bill  bearing  consumer No. 05-D45/KSP & New account No. 311202360030 for which  the complainant   sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On  being noticed the O.Ps appeared and filed written version.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the  O.Ps    and from the  complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This District Commission  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

         FINDINGS.

  Undisputedly  that the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps. bearing  Consumer  No. 05-D45/KSP & New account No. 311202360030 as revealed from the  Electrical bills filed by  the  complainant which is in the file.    Undispsutedly the complainant had received Electricity   consumption bill  for the month of    October, 2020  a sum  Rs.13,345/-  from the O.Ps  for payment (copies of the bill is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-2). After  receipt of the above bill the complainant  had informed to the  O.P. to  verify the meter reading  and revise the bill  for facilitating  payment. In spite of repeated  contact with the O.Ps  they have not revised the bill.  Hence this C.C. case.

In the written version in para No. 1   the O.P. contented that the above complaint petition  is not legally maintainable in the eye of  law.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act ?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation.  It is held and reported in  2010 (1) CPR- 255  where  in the hon’ble  National   Commission  observed “ Section-3 of the C.P. Act and Section 175 of the Electricity Act provides that they are in addition and not in derogation to any other law of rights  to be heard   & redressal  of the grievances under any other law for the time being in force.  Therefore the C.P. Act are not affected by the Electricity Act. Consumer of electrical  energy provided   by the  company, is a  consumer   as defined under Section 2(1)(o)  of the C.P.Act and a complaint alleging any deficiency on the part of the  TPSODL Tata  Power  Southern Odisha Distribution Limited   including any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality  nature  and manner of performance which  is required  to be   maintained by  or under any law or in pursuance of any contract in relation to service, is maintainable  under the  C.P. Act.  

Accordingly answered the issue.   The complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act.

This District   Consumer  commission  found  the excess bill for the month of October, 2020  against the above consumer  No.  inter alia  amounts charged Rs.13,345/- which is  illegal as the above  consumer is domestic user.

The O.Ps. in para No.4  of their written version  submitted that  on considering the  allegation and statement of billing, it is dictated that during the  defective meter  period the monthly  bill was raised in  provisional  basis from 9/2019 to 10/2020. On considering the average  unit consumption , after the installation of the new meter in the month of 9/2019, the bill has been revised and the revised amount has been effected.  After such  revision there is no question of further revision(copies of the revision  statement  and statement  of billing  are in the file marked as   Annexure-2.

The complainant in the present  case  during the course  of hearing  he has  received the  above statement  of billing  from the O.P through this Commission  and   objected the  above revision.

The complainant submitted that  the old meter has  been  changed   during the month of  September, 2019  but the bill  has  been effected  from  October, 2020   which is  gross deficiency   in service  on the part of the O.Ps  and the complainant   has not satisfied the  revision of the  bill.

During   the course of hearing  the O.Ps  submitted that  the provisional bill was issued from  September, 2019 to October, 2020   @ 39 units  per month.  But  on receipt of actual meter reading  taken  in the month  of October, 2020  and charged  2248 units  in the same month.  The same levied unit  has been  split-up  with 160 units per month  and revision bill  has bee prepared by withdrawing  an amount of Rs.5,283/- which is to be adjusted  in  July, 2021 bill.

That for failure to act properly by the statutary authority i.e. O.Ps the complainant  should not be deprived of his benefits legitmate entitlement. It is  to be ensured   that the benefit to which the complainant is eligible are  entitled  enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.  In most of the similar  cases  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court observed  “Negligence  by  public authorities cannot be paradoned. They should be made responsible  for the compensation  to a consumer undertaken harassment  on  account of  their behaviour.

For the best interest  of justice  this District Commission  feel it justifiable the O.Ps  should receive  50%  claimed amount from the complainant.

The O.Ps after  revision  they claimed  to deposit  Rs.10,327.00    by the  complainant.  This District Commission  has   allowed  to complainant  to deposit 50%  of the claimed amount  i.e. Rs.5,164.00  (Rupees  five thousand one hundred sixty  four)only.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliance Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.   

                                                                                                ORDER.

In  resultant  the complaint petition stands  allowed  in  part  on contest against the O.Ps 

The  revision  bill  issued by the  O.Ps  to be paid by the  complainant/consumer as on billing month April, 2021  a  sum of Rs. 10,327.00   is hereby quashed.

The O.Ps are directed to  receive  Rs.5,164/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred sixty  four)only from the  complainant  towards Electrical  consumer No. 05-D45/KSP & New account No. 311202360030.

The complainant is directed to deposit the above amount  in the counter of the  O.P.  within  one month from the date of receipt  of this order. Parties are left  to bear their own cost.  Copies be served to the parties  as per rule.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this                 23rd.   Day  of    September , 2021.

               

                                              Member.                                      President