Orissa

Debagarh

CC/45/2018

Rajendra Prasad Kar, aged 42 years, S/O- Late Rasananda Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The S.D.O, Electrical, Deogarh Electrical Division,WESCO - Opp.Party(s)

22 Apr 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH

Complaint Case No-   45 /2018

 

Present-       Sri  Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan,

Member (W) and  Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Rajendra Prasad Kar, aged about 43 years,

S/O- Late Rasananda Kar,

At-Sasansahi,Ward No-4,

P.O/P.s/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                             …..            Complainant.

                                                                Versus

1.    The S.D.O,Electrical,

             Deogarh Electrical Division, (WESCO)

             P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.

 

    2.     The Executive Engineer,

            Deogarh Electrical Division, (WESCO)

            P.O/ P.S/Dist-Deogarh.  

  3.     The Junior Engineer,

          Deogarh Electrical Division, (WESCO)

          P.O/ P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                 .…       Opposite Parties.

 

           For the Complainant        : -        Nemo

            For the Opp. Parties-       :-         None.

 

DATE OF HEARING: 15.04.2019, DATE OF ORDER: 22.04.2019.

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra,President-Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant is a consumer of electricity having power supply in his name since May-2018.He has paid requisite charges towards  security deposit, meter charges and security charges to the O.P-1 to avail power supply in his premises. The O.Ps has sent monthly electric bill for the month of May & June-2018 as per meter reading which was paid by the Complainant. But in the month of July-2018 the electric bill supplied by the O.Ps contained a sum of Rs. 50/-as Sundry Charges which was objected by the Complainant .He has tried of his best to know about the charges levied on him and requested to stop adding the same but in vain and the O.Ps still continued charging the sundry expenses in his monthly bills up to November-2019. Hence the Complainant is paying in excess to his metered bill every month in suspicion.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

            From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that here exists a Consumer Complaint because the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps as he has availed power supply in his name. It is seen from the monthly electric bills supplied by the O.Ps that, for the first two months i.e May & June-2018 the metered bill is Rs. 18/- and Rs. 25/- respectively without levy of Sundry charges. But in the bills for the months of July to November-2018 the net amount payable  are Rs.82/-,Rs.90/-,Rs.73/-,Rs.88/-and Rs.70/-respectively where the Sundry charges are Rs 50/- for each month which is much more than the monthly electric bills. On asking the O.Ps are unable to reply the Complainant rather neglected him in various ways. The Complainant has made several efforts to know about the reason and nature for which he is being charged but the O.Ps were reluctant to disclose the same. So the Complainant remained in confusion and a doubt developed in his mind regarding the hidden charges which is suspicious and put the Complainant into financial loss, agony and mental pain. “Again Sundry expenses are costs incurred for small things which cannot be categorized under a specific heading. They are usually infrequent, considerably low, and miscellaneous in nature & are not classified under a specific ledger account”. A perusal of bills have been indicated that there is no mention of arrears pertaining to the above noted billed periods .If there is any arrear is pending that should be mentioned in every bills. “It is settled law that no arrears for the period earlier than 6(Six) months can be claimed by the O.Ps unless these are continuously reflected in the bills from the time they became due”. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Assistant Executive Engineer, Industrial Area Sub-Division, Sirsa –Vs- Sangeeta Sachdeva” decided by Hon’ble Union Territory Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Chandigarh in the year 2008.Hence the O.Ps have committed “Deficiency in Service”  u/s-2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act-1986, by not providing proper services to the Complainant.        

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are directed to refund the amount taken as sundry charges to the complainant. The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) as compensation towards mental agony and pain and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.   

            Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 22^nd   day of April-2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

 

I agree,                                             I  agree,                                           

 

MEMBER.(W)                                 MEMBER.                                        PRESIDENT.

 

                                                Dictated and Corrected

                                                                by me.

 

                                                            PRESIDENT.