DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:BHADRAK
Dated the 24th day of December, 2016
C.D.Case No.138 of 2015
Smt Padmabati Panigrahi
D/o: Late Dola Panigrahi
Vill: Naripur Samil Anijo
Po: B.T. Pur, Ps: Agarapada
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
- The Executive Engineer Electrical
South Electric Division
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
- S.D.O Electrical South Division
At: Bonth Chhak
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: Umakanta Barik, Advocate
For O.Ps: Harekrushna Pati, Advocate
Date of hearing : 23.08.2016
Date of order : 24.12.2016
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
The brief facts which has been disclosed in this complaint as follows:-
That the complainant is a helpless & widow those who is a BPL beneficiary of consumer No. RG-RAG-36198. She is a consumer under the O.Ps. She has no arrear or outstanding revenue lying against her. The complainant is the only member of her family. She has got her home separated from her brother’s family. The O.Ps & along with their subordinates used to visit the native house of the complainant & threatened her that her electric supply would be disconnected if she would fail to pay her arrears. The O.Ps & their subordinates had visited the complainant’s dwelling house on 19.12.2015. At that time they had not served any prior discontinuing notice upon the complainant. They took away the service wire, meter & meter board which were affixed inside the dwelling house of the complainant & threatened her that she could not use the electricity during her life time. The poor & helpless widow (Complainant) requested earnestly the O.Ps but they did not pay any heed to her. The complainant visited the office of the O.Ps to restore & reconnect her electric supply but they vehemently rejected her request on 19.12.2015. Hence the complainant has been living in the darkness. Finding no other way the complainant has taken shelter under this Forum for the Redressal of her grievance having sought for the reliefs of the restoration & reconnection of the electric supply to her dwelling house, the O.Ps be directed to return back all the electric accessories & fittings shall be fixed, & the O.Ps be directed to pay Rs 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony & physical persecution.
The complainant has filed some relevant documents on behalf of her such Xerox copy of voters ID card (Annexure- 1), Xerox copy of money receipt vide No. 352894 (Annexure- 2), Xerox copy of BPL card bearing No. 359837 (Annexure- 3), Xerox copy of letter No. 21/2011 issued on 13.04.2011 by the Sarapancha Anijo G.P. (Annexure- 4).
On the other hand the O.Ps have filed their written version challenging the maintainability of the C.D Case. They have also challenged that the case is hit by principle of res-judicata as because the complainant had complaint bearing C.D Case No. 143/2013 against the O.Ps basing upon similar fact in issue & it was finally decided on 29.09.2015 by this Forum. The O.Ps have also challenged that this C.D Case has no cause of action. The O.Ps have further averred that, denying all the allegations made by the complainant against them. They further averred that the power supply was giving in the name of the complainant as a beneficiary list of BPL card holder prepared by District Admiration under R.G.G.V.Y scheme, as per the terms & conditions. The O.P after obtaining the list of beneficiary, proceeds to change the installation & latter that & alter that power supply is to initiate to the house of beneficiary, prior to giving power supply the beneficiary produced documentary prove to establish her name listed in the beneficiary list, the OP electrified the premises of the complainant on 07.02.2013 believing upon the said list. There was another connection in the premises of the complaint in the name of Ananta Prasad Panigrahi who was brother of her due to nonpayment of electric bill & arrear amounting to Rs 14,3771. 56p till November-2013 the power supply is disconnected. The O.Ps have refused that the complainant is not a BPL card holder & actual BPL card holder bearing No. 66 recorded in the name of Padmabati Panigrahi W/O Chintamani Panigrahi, it was detected latter on that taking advantage of the identical name the brother of the complainant Ananta Prasada Panigrahi has managed to obtain the said BPL card & practicing fraud has taken in the BPL electricity connection & the name of the his sister (Complainant) in order to avoid payment of his arrear electric bill, after aware about all the facts about the fraud in order to ascertain the truth the OP issued a letter vide No. 419 on dt. 14.02.2014 to the Sarapancha Anijo GP , in response to that letter the Sarapancha vide letter No. 8 dt. 14.02.2014 intimated that Padmabati Panigrahi W/O Chinta Panigrahi Vill- Naripur Anijo GP, BPL card No. 6697 has already been died since 8 years back, after detecting all these fraud power supply was disconnected as the complainant is not a consumer or beneficiary under R.G.G.V.Y scheme & she has got no locus standing to file such C.D Case. The O.Ps have further averred that the complainant had filed a C.D Case No. 143/2013 on the basis of identical in issued against the opposite party, the said case was finally dismissed being heard.
Having gone through the case record & the documents filed by the complainant we have framed the following issues.
- Is the present C.D Case maintainable?
- Has the C.D Case cause of action?
- Is the C.D Case hit by principle of Res-judicata?
- Is the complainant dead or alive?
- Is the complainant a beneficiary of BPL & has she been enlisted to the scheme?
- Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs what she has sought for?
Answering to the issue No. 1 we have decided that the present C.D Case is maintainable because neither the complainant nor the O.Ps have filed any document with regard to the decision of the previous C.D Case No. 143/2013. In order to discuss the present C.D Case the O.Ps should have filed the relevant documents in support of the averments made in the written version but the O.Ps have completely failed to file a single scrap of paper in order to establish their defence. Hence the case is maintainable in the eyes of law.
Answering to the issue No. 2 we have decided that the complainant has come to the Court with clean hands she has already cleared of her arrears of the electric connection. She is not found to be a defaulter. The O.Ps have disconnected her electric connection without serving any disconnection notice upon the complainant which they should have done before 1 week of the connection. The receipt on dt. 21.11.2015 is the prim face evidence of up-to-date payment of the complainant.
It is further decided that as the O.Ps have taken away the service wire, switch board, meter board & other accessories of the complainant forcibly as she is a helpless lady, the activities of the O.Ps which is illegal & unlawful. The O.Ps had taken away those materials from the dwelling house of the complainant & those materials were the self purchased things of the complainant. So the O.Ps have no right to take away such electric service wire, meter board, switch board & other accessories of the complainant, which is tantamount with an offence. So the complainant has got adequate cause of action to file this C.D Case in this Forum.
Neither the complainant nor the O.Ps have filed any document with regard to the previous C.D Case No. 143/2013. When the burden lies upon the O.Ps to prove the principle of the Res-judicata against the complainant, so they should have filed the certified copy of the order passed by this Forum in the previous C.D Case No. 143/2013. The statute says “The court which decided the former suit most be competent to try the subsequent suit. It has been held A.I.R 1971, SC2355 that Erroneous decision on questions of jurisdiction of the Court does not operate Res-judicata”. “ It is further held that in A.I.R 1966 SC1332” where the former suit is dismissed for want of Jurisdiction or for default of plaintiff’s appearance or in the ground of non-joineder or misjoinder of parties or multi feriousness or on the ground that the suit was badly framed on the ground of a technical mistake or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letters or administration or succession certificates when the same is required by law or entitled to the plaintiff to a decree or for failure or furnish for costs or the ground of improper valuation or for failure to pay additional Court fees on the plaint which was undervalued or want of cause of action or on the ground that it is premature & the dismissal is confirmed in appeal the decision not being on merit would not be res-judicata as subsequent suit. Hence the present case is not hit by principle of res-judicata.
Answering the issue No. 4 we have adjudicated that regarding the death of the complainant the O.Ps should have established the case being filed the death certificate issued by the competent authority of Govt. of Odisha. The said certificate is a public document. The O.Ps have failed to file such document as the burden of prove lies upon them regarding the death of the complainant. The certificate issued by the Sarapancha is neither a public document nor a private document. Secondly the Sarapancha of Anijo GP has issued letter vide No. 8 dt. 18.02.2014 that Padmabati Panigrahi W/O Chintamani Panigrahi is dead. But the present complainant is an unmarried lady who is living upon her ancestral home, stead land who is D/O Dola Panigrahi. So the letter of Sarapancha issued on 30.04.2011 to the B.D.O, Bonth that there was a printing mistake that the BPL card issued by the competent department has been
Printed as Padmabati Panigrahi W/O Chinta Panigrahi is wrong but it should be corrected as Padmabati Panigrahi D/O Dola Panigrahi.
The O.Ps have not filed any relevant document with regard to the death of the complainant, so the complainant is the just & proper person to file this case who is alive now. The BPL card (Xerox copy) the voter ID card reveals that Padmabati Panigrahi is the D/O Dola Panigrahi. The BPL card vide No. 359887 issued by the competent authority to the complainant reveals she is coming under R.G.G.V.Y scheme. On the other hand she has filed the BPL list issued by the B.D.O that Padmabati Panigrahi is the W/O Chinta Panigrahi but latter this BPL list was rectified & as per the voter ID card the name of the complainant has been corrected as Padmabati Panigrahi D/O Dola Panigrahi, is positively coming under the R.G.G.V.Y scheme as well as she is a beneficiary of the said scheme.
Answering to the issue No. 6 we have decided that as the complainant is not a defaulter consumer under the O.Ps nor she has neglected to pay the revenue of electricity, it is the gross deficiency of service caused by the O.Ps that uprooting the meter board along with the switch board, taking away the service wire & service pipe from the house of the complainant & disconnecting of electricity supply from the dwelling house of the complainant as well as it is also illegal & unjust practice under taken by the service provider without serving any disconnection notice to the complainant. The complainant has filed the Xerox copy of the money receipt obtained by her vide dt. 21.11.2015, proves that she was regularly paying the electric bill till the disconnection. So the allegation made by the O.Ps against her that she was a defaulter of paying the electric bill is completely false, baseless & concocted. So we have decided that the complainant has been deprived of, her legitimate right. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint is & the same be allowed directing the O.Ps to affix the switch board & meter board along with other accessories such as meter & main switch, in the dwelling house premises of the complainant, to regularize the electric current & make connection of the same to the said house of the complainant, to return back the service wire which was previously removed by them.
The O.Ps are also directed to pay 20,000/- to the complainant for her mental agony & Rs 10,000/- for cost of the litigation, total amount Rs 30,000/- is to be paid.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on 24th day of December 2016 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
