SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the Executive Engineer, Electrical, TPNODL, OP No.2 is the S.D.O., Electrical, TPNODL & OP No.3 is the J.E., Electrical, TPNODL, Jaleswar Division, in the district of Balasore.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops bearing consumer No.323123040678. He used to pay the electric dues regularly and no outstanding energy dues is pending against him. He used to reside separately in another place in Mouza Kashidiha. The complainant wanted to take a new electricity connection to his new house and accordingly, he submitted the relevant documents as per direction of the Ops and also deposited Rs.3,910/- on 2.12.2022 for new connection charges along with Rs.35/- for inspection fees and obtained payment receipts. Thereafter, the Ops visited the premises of the complainant and assured for early connection. For the purpose, the complainant made a run to the office of the Ops time and again, but in vain. On 5.1.2023, the Ops denied to provide new connection stating that a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards arrear bill is pending against his father and unless said amount is deposited, they will not provide new connection to his premises. For the above acts of the Ops, the complainant as well as his family sustained irreparable loss.
It is further stated that the complainant requested the Ops to provide the bill statement of his father, but the Ops turned a deaf ear to it. So, the complainant collected the bill statement of his father through online and came to know that there is no outstanding electric dues against his father. The complainant informed about the above state of affairs to the Ops, but intentionally they did not listen to it. Thus, the Ops have committed deficiency in service and thereby put him to suffer mental agony and harassment.
The cause of action arose for filing of this case on 5.1.2023, when the Ops denied to provide new connection to his premises. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present case with the reliefs sought for in the complaint petition. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-
- Photocopy of Bill for the month of 9/22 to 10/22.
- Photocopy of application form.
- Photocopy of payment receipt.
- Photocopy of Cyber Treasury eChallan.
- Photocopy of Affidavit executed by the father of the complainant.
- Photocopy of Affidavit executed by the complainant.
- Photocopy of Record of Right in respect of Khata No.203/25.
3. The Ops have made their appearance and filed their joint written version challenging the maintainability of the case and cause of action for filing the case. They have stated, inter alia, that the father of the complainant namely Narayan Jena was a consumer bearing No.NKJ-0060, who was a regular defaulter and till March, 2023 a sum of Rs.2,30,924/- was outstanding against him. The complainant has applied for new connection over Khata No.203/25 of Mouza Kashidiha which stands in the name of his father against whom the above arrear outstanding is due for which the application of the complainant could not be allowed and the said fact was also intimated to him. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a case before the GRF bearing No.372 of 2022. Anticipating the case would be disposed of against him, the complainant filed the present case before this Commission. In the meantime, said GRF Case was disposed of on 9.2.2023. Neither the complainant complied the order of GRF nor filed any appeal before the appropriate authority. Therefore, the present case is not maintainable.
In order to prove their case, the Ops have relied upon the following documents which are placed in the case record –
- Photocopy of GRF Case No.372/2022.
- Photocopy of order passed by the GRF.
4. In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether this consumer case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
5. First of all it is to be determined as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not. From the averments made in the pleadings of both the parties so also from the documents produced by the parties, it is clear that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops and thus, it is clear that the complainant is covered under the definition of a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
6. Now it is to be determined as to whether the complainant has sufficient cause of action to file the case and whether the case is maintainable in the eye of law. During course of hearing, it is argued by the learned counsel for the Ops that the father of the complainant namely Narayan Jena was a consumer bearing No.NKJ-0060, who was a regular defaulter. Till the month of March, 2023 an amount of Rs.2,30,924/- was outstanding against him. It is a fact that the complainant has applied for new connection over Khata No.203/25 of Mouza Kashidiha, but the said land stands in the name of his father against whom the above arrear outstanding is due for which the application of the complainant could not be allowed and the said fact has also intimated him. That apart, the complainant has also not submitted the undertaking through affidavit to the effect that no outstanding dues is pending in his name or in the name of his spouse, parents or in the name of a firm or company with which he is associated or situated in the same DISCOM. It is further argued that the complainant filed a case before the GRF bearing No.372 of 2022 and anticipating the case would be disposed of against him, he has filed the present case before this Commission. In the said GRF case, the complainant himself was present at the time of hearing and submitted that he would be continued with his father’s old connection as above provided and allowed to pay the actual arrear till October, 2006 in two instalments and basing upon his admission, GRF case was disposed of on 9.2.2023. But the complainant has filed the present case prior to disposal of GRF Case i.e. on 24.1.2023. Neither the complainant complied the order of GRF nor filed any appeal before the appropriate authority.
7. To counter the submissions as advanced on behalf of the Ops, learned counsel for the complainant has not submitted a single word with regard to the fact that the complainant has filed the GRF Case and the present case simultaneously seeking the same remedies and the fact of admission before the GRF that he would be continued with his father’s old connection and agreed to pay the arrear dues in two instalments.
8. Upon hearing from both the sides, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant cannot pursue two remedies for the self-same cause of action. As it is seen from the documents produced on behalf of the Ops, the complainant has filed GRF Case No.372 of 2022 and before its disposal, he has knocked the door of this Commission. Moreover, the complainant has preferred any appeal before the appropriate authority, if at all aggrieved with the order of the GRF. That apart, the complainant has also not submitted any affidavit to the effect that no outstanding dues is pending in his name or in the name of his spouse, parents or in the name of a firm or company with which he is associated or situated in the same DISCOM as per Regulation 17(1) of OERC Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code, 2019. Further, the facts stated in the complaint petition and the facts stated before the GRF are contrary to each other. From the above discussions, it is held that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hand seeking the reliefs, as afore-stated. Ultimately, this Commission is of the considered view that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present case. Consequently, the case is not maintainable. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief what-so-ever in this case.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops without cost.
Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 05th day of February, 2024 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.
