The case record is posted today for hearing and for consideration of the memo filed by the Advocate for the Complainant. The Complainant is absent today and no step is taken on his behalf. On repeated calls, also the Complainant remained absent. The Advocate for O.Ps is present and files hazira along with one memo praying to drop the case on the grounds stated therein. 

                                         In the present case, the O.Ps were appeared and filed written version. It reveals from the memo filed by the O.Ps that the Complainant remained absent since long. Further, the Complainant has deposited all the pending dues according to the order of GRF dated 12.06.2019. So, the present case is not maintainable and should be dropped. As it appears from the case record, the Advocate for the Complainant filed one memo dated 11.02.2023 to the effect that he has no contact or instruction from the side of the Complainant to prosecute the case.

                                         It is the case of the Complainant that his son was running a small scale industries and also a Consumer under the O.Ps. He used to pay the electricity dues regularly. After the death of his son in the year 2006, the Complainant along with his two business partner look after the industry and regularly paid the dues to the O.Ps. In the month of May, 2010, a bill was issued for consumption of electricity amounting to Rs.2,12,846.00. That apart, in June, 2010 another bill was issued for consumption of 6442 unit, which the Complainant not at all consumed, for which a complaint was made before O.P No.1 requesting for verification of the meter and testing the meter with a prayer to revision of the bill. The Complainant deposited Rs.1,000.00 towards meter testing charge. Thereafter, O.P No.3 made a verification to his business premises, but did not supply the verification report. Thus, the Complainant had to run pillar to post several times for revision of the bill, but in vain.

                                         On the other hand, O.Ps have stated in their written version that the industry of the Complainant was availing excess power supply unauthorizedly without executing contract demand with O.Ps and for continuous over shooting of maximum demand shown by the indicator, the industry was converted into large scale industry category. On verification, the meter and its testing, the meter was found to be properly working. Thus, the Complainant was issued with the accurate bill.

                                         Besides the above, the Complainant has filed a complaint before the GRF, Balasore vide Case No.139/2017 in the aforesaid matter in which the Hon’ble President, GRF, Balasore dismissed the said case. The Complainant had deposited all pending dues by accepting the order of Hon’ble GRF, Balasore. Thereafter, the Complainant filed complaint before the Hon’ble OMBUDSMAN-II vide CR Case No.OM-II(N)-14 of 2019 against the O.Ps and the said case is now pending.  

                                         Before delve into the merits of the case, it is to be decided as to whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not. It is seen from written version of the O.Ps that the Complainant, being aggrieved with the excess amount in the electric bill, presented complaint before the GRF, Balasore vide Case No.139/2017 which was dismissed and thereafter, the Complainant preferred another complaint before the Hon’ble OMBUDSMAN-II vide CR Case No.OM-II(N)-14 of 2019, which is now pending. At the outset, the Complainant has not mentioned a single line in his complaint petition about the fact of filing of the complaint before the GRF, Balasore on the selfsame matter which was turned down and also filing of another complaint before the Hon’ble OMBUDSMAN-II which is now pending. If that be so, in the above premises, this Commission lacks jurisdiction to sit over the matter. On the other hand, the Complainant has not come to this Commission in clean hand and suppression of the material fact amounts to miscarriage of justice. 

                                         Taking into consideration the above discussions in the foregoing paragraphs so also the memo filed by the Advocate for the Complainant, it is held proper that the complaint of the Complainant is not maintainable.

                                         Accordingly, the complaint of the Complainant is dismissed as not maintainable.