Orissa

Rayagada

CC/32/2014

Smt. Shanti Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Electrical, South co, Gunupur, Dist. Rayagada - Opp.Party(s)

Self

03 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 32/ 2014.                                          Date.      3 .    04    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

Smt. Shanti Devi, W/O: T.P.Dwivedi,  Punjabi Hotel Road, New Colony, Po/ Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.           Consumer No. OIF -3967/9861.                                                                                                                                                                                                  …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Executive Engineer, SOUTH.CO., Electrical Division, Rayagada.

2.The Sub-divisional Officer, SOUTH.CO.,(Maintnance), ElectricalSub-Division, Rayagada.Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps:- Deputy  Manager(Legal).

JUDGMENT

 

       The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non restoration of  Electrical service connection bearing consumer No.OIF-3967/9861 (311102440278) and not to disconnect the  present electricity service connection  bearing consumer No.OIF-28960  (311102440582 ) for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

 

On being noticed the O.P. No.1 & 2  filed joint written version through their learned counsel  and refuting the allegation levelled against  them. The O.Ps taking one and other pleass in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps No. 1 & 2   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties & vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

 

                                                         FINDINGS.

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the Complaint  petition is maintainable before the forum  under C.P. Act ?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation It is held and reported in C.P.R-2007(1)-182 where in the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh observed “ Once a consumer complaint  availed one remedy out of many availed and failed there, he could not approach Consumer Forum”.

                In the present case in hand   the complainant  before filing  of  Consumer Disputes had approached the G.R.F., Jeypore for revision of Excess Electrical bill of her Electrical Connections  where the complainant was not satisfied . After  decision  of   G.R.F.,Jeypore,  she  could not file complaint  before forum  and could have filed  appeal  before higher authorities.

                No doubt, the remedy under the C.P. Act, 1986 is in addition to and  not to derogation of remedies  provided  under other statutes but that would not mean that after availing one remedy out of many remedies  available to a consumer and having failed there she can come to the Forum  under the C.P. Act. Once a remedy is chosen that must be taken to its logical end.

                Accordingly answered the issue.   The present  complaint  is  not maintainable  before the forum. Though the  case is not maintainable before  this forum  this forum  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case

Undisputedly the complainant  is a consumer  under the  O.Ps and availing  Electrical service  connection   bearing  Consumer No.OIF-3967/9861 (311102440278)  since long.

In the present  case in hand  the consumer/complainant  had filed  her complaint before the GRF, Jeypore   and the order has been passed according  to the law  which is binding  on the consumer/complainant.

          In written version para-3  the O.Ps  have  clearly mentioned  that the Hon’ble Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of powers under  sub-section (5)(6) & (7) of Section-42 read  with clause(R) and (S) of Sub-section(2) of Section 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has made  the OERC(Grievance  redressal forum and ombudsman) Regulation, 2004. On the strength of this  enactment the Commission has asked the SOUTH.CO to set up the GRF having  provided the guide lines for redressal of grievances of consumers. Prima-facie a consumer aggrieved of any service in electrical side has to approach the concerned GRF.  And when a consumer feels still he is aggrieved of any orders imparted by the GRF can make representation to Ombudsman against the non-redressal of his grievance to his satisfaction. Since the matter has already been decided by the learned GRF, Jeypore in its  C. C. No. 190/13-14  on Dt.24.1.2014  only in this case the proper  forum is Ombudsman for making  an appeal against the orders of GRF, Jeypore and not with this Hon’ble  DCDRF (Copies of the order of GRF,Jeypore C. C. No. 190/13-14  on Dt.24.1.2014  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).

 

         

          In written version para-5  the O.Ps  have  clearly mentioned  that apart from the above connection  the present  complainant  is having  two more connections under the name of her husband Mr. T.P.Trivedi. After  two No. of connection  were provided  to the same building, the entire  connected load of the building was segregate in to three No. of connection. So the claim of the complainant  to effect  the revision prior to the Dt.5.4.2011 not accepted by the  O.Ps and also  by the learned GRF, because the new meter to her connection was replaced during April, 2012 only after segregation of load.

 

          In written version para-6  the O.Ps  have  clearly mentioned  that in entertaining the complaint the O.P. has revised the bill for the period  from April, 2011 to March, 2012 keeping in view the statutory direction mandated in regulation -97 of OERC (Conditions of supply) code 2004 and has adjusted the amount which has been paid in due course. (Copy of the bill   attached in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).

                In  order C.C. No. 190/ 13-14  the G.R.F., Jeypore  Smt. Shanti Devi Vrs. SDO., Electrical SOUTH.CO, Jeypore  in  last  para  clearly  mentioned “ With this order the case  is disposed off giving liberty to the consumer that if she is not satisfied  and aggrieved with this order she may appeal to the Ombudsman-II, Qrs. No. 3 Rs/2, Gridco  colony, Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751022 within 30 days of receipt of this order.

In view of the order passed by the  G.R.F., Jeypore   the complaint filed in the present case before the forum  is not maintainable. Accordingly, without  going into the merits of the case, this forum dismiss  the above complaint petition  with liberty to the complainant to seek appropriate remedy available to him before the appropriate forum.

To meet the ends of justice  the following order is passed.

ORDER

In resultant the complaint petition  stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

            We ordered  the OPs not to claim any amount   towards arrear outstanding  as demanded  by them and they can only claim the complainant the regular consumption bill  till finalization of the petition by the appellate authority. In the given circumstances the parties to bear  their own costs.

            The Interim  order passed on Dt. 6.2.2014  by this forum is made final with the above direction.

            The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act  held   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute  which  reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583 .

This   judgement will not come in the way  of the complainant  to file an appeal etc. before the higher authority  against the decision of the G.R.F.,Jeypore and if any appeal is within one month of  the receipt  of a copy of this order by the complainant  the  appellate authority of the  G.R.F., Jeypore  would decide the case on merits and would not dismiss the same on the ground of limitation.

 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

Dictated and corrected by me.

            Pronounced in open forum today on this              3^rd. day of    April,  2018

 

Member                                             Member.                                                 President