The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Executive Engineer, Jaleswar Electrical Division, Jaleswar, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the S.D.O, Electrical, Jaleswar Division, Jaleswar, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the J.E Electrical No.2, Jaleswar, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a bonafide Consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.F9986 and he is the owner in possession of the property bearing Khata No.81 under Mouza-Aruha. In order to earn his livelihood, the Complainant has installed a irrigation pump in his land and availing irrigation facility. Thereafter, the Complainant is running a lift irrigation point since 1998 and he was/ is regularly paying the energy charges as per the bills supplied by the O.Ps in every month since 1998. On 31.05.2015, the L.T line power supply of the Complainant was automatically cut-down and the L.I point was disconnected from the main power supply. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the O.Ps in several times to reconnect power supply, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it, rather with oblique motive, the O.Ps served average bills during the disconnection period and the Complainant also paid the above said bill amount. Thereafter on 16.10.2017 and 26.12.2017, the Complainant sent to his representation to the Collector, Balasore and on 27.10.2017, he has also sent his representation to the S.E, Electrical, Balasore through Postal service. In spite of several requests made by the Complainant, the O.Ps did not reconnect the power supply to the L.I point of the Complainant, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.Ps, causing mental agony and financial loss to the Complainant. Cause of action to file this case arose on 16.10.2017 and on 27.10.2017. The Complainant has prayed to reconnect the power supply of the L.I point of the Complainant and also to revise the average bill of the Complainant along with litigation cost.

                    3. Though the O.Ps have appeared in this case through their Advocate, but they have not filed their written version in this case. The O.Ps are set ex-parte and the Advocate for O.Ps has not participated in hearing of this case.

                    4. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after disconnection of electric power supply to his L.I point automatically on 31.05.2015, he approached the O.Ps in several times for reconnection of power supply and when failed, he came to this Forum praying for reconnection of power supply to his L.I point and to revise the average bill along with litigation cost. But, on perusal of Annexure-8 as filed by the Complainant, which is the electric bill for the month of November-2017 discloses the meter status was “Reconnection” and the bill charged was on average basis. So, when the power supply of his L.I point was disconnected on 31.05.2015 and when it was not reconnected, he approached the concerned Collector and failed, then how Annexure-8 discloses about reconnection of power supply to his L.I point. The Advocate for Complainant has failed to clarify the ambiguity about his submission and the document of Annexure-8 regarding reconnection of power supply to the L.I point of the Complainant. So, from the document, it shows that the power supply has been reconnected. The O.Ps are absent at the time of hearing of this case and also set ex-parte, for which this Forum has been kept in dark about the actual position. But, prima facie, it shows that the power supply has been reconnected basing on Annexure-8. Moreover, the Complainant has not filed any other electric bill either prior to November-2017 or after November-2017 to know the actual position. Though it is argued that in the bill, the electric department (the O.Ps) has normally mentioned the status of the meter as reconnection, I am not satisfied with the submission of the Advocate for Complainant.   

                    5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I am in the opinion that the Complainant has not came to this Forum with clean hands and he has also suppressed the material facts, for which he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against the O.Ps without cost.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 13th day of August, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.