Orissa

Ganjam

CC/3/2019

Smt. Mahalaxmi Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The S.D.O, Southco - Opp.Party(s)

Through Sri Kedarnath Mohapatro, Advocate & his Associates for the Complainant

22 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GANJAM, BERHAMPUR.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/3/2019
( Date of Filing : 21 Jan 2019 )
 
1. Smt. Mahalaxmi Swain
W/o Sri Mangala Swain, Laxminrusingha Street 3rd lane, Haridakhandi Road, Po. Berhampur, Ps. Badabazar, Ganjam, Odisha.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The S.D.O, Southco
Sub-Division-I, Berhampur - 2 Ganjam.
2. The Executive Engineer(Southco)
At-Corporation Road, Berhampur, Ganjam.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Satish Kumar Panigrahi PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Saritri Pattanaik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Through Sri Kedarnath Mohapatro, Advocate & his Associates for the Complainant, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Through Sri Mahendra Mahapatra, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 22 May 2023
Final Order / Judgement

DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.05.2023

 

 

 

SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

 

  1. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.  
  2. The complainant is a senior citizen and a bonafide consumer of O.Ps vides her Consumer Account No: 342102180144. On 18.03.2018 the staff of O.P.No.1 came to the residence of the above-named complainant and forcefully disconnected the electric connection despite showing the bill paid by here regularly which is illegal and contrary to Electricity Act. They took Rs.150/- for re-connection when this complainant made a protest on illegal disconnection. The supply of electricity became normal after payment of an illegally of Rs.150/- as a reconnection charge to avoid darkness this complainant was compelled to pay Rs.30,000/- for the said purpose. Due to illegal disconnection and excess billing and rude behavior of the staff of O.P.No.1, the complainant reported the same to the O.P.No.2 with a request to take necessary action about the matter but the O.P.No.2 remained silent for which complainant sustained mental agony, financial loss, deficiency in service and personal reputation. Alleging deficiency in service the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to revise the inflated bill of March 2017 and refund Rs.30,000/- with Rs.150/- of disconnection for payment of bills to the O.Ps, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in the best interest of justice.
  3. Notice was issued to the O.Ps. The O.Ps are appeared through their advocate  filed Vakalatanama for O.Ps on 17.08.2020 and thereafter found absent consecutively and not filed written version to date.
  4. The law is well settled in Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta, the Hon’ble Apex Court of India had considered the object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. It was enacted to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers. Because of such a ruling of the Hon’ble Court, in the larger interest of the Consumers we have taken into task to dispose of the present case on the basis of the complaint of the complainant. 
  5. To justify and provide protection to the complaint, a clear and specific inference can be drawn from the act of the opposite parties in the instant case that, there is a dispute in issuing of an erroneous bill. Following Reg.91 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004, the licensee shall revise the bill immediately after getting a grievance from its customers. The complainant filed a written grievance on 18.03.2018 to the Opposite Party no.1 but the opposite Party no.1 instead of settling the grievance within the stipulated period as contemplated by the OERC remained silent over the matter. Hence it is directed to the O.Ps. to re-consider the grievance letter dtd:18.03.2018  filed by the complainant.
  6. Further, the complainant has a grievance regarding illegal disconnection during the pending deposit of the net amount by the due date. The due date of payment is contemplated under Reg.93 (2) of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2003 that, “the licensee shall intimate the consumer of the due date for payment of his bills. The due date of payment for all consumers shall be fifteen days from the bill date.” If the consumer fails to pay any consumption charge for electricity or any other sum due and payable by him to a licensee by the due date mentioned in the bill, the licensee may, after giving not less than fifteen (15) clear days’ notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sums, cut off the supply of electricity, and for that purpose disconnect any electric supply line. But in the present case before completion of the due date of payment as mentioned in the bill and without serving fifteen clear days’ notice under Sec.100 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 the O.Ps. disconnected the power supply of the premises and collected amounting of Rs.30000/- and reconnection charges of Rs.150/- on 18.03.2018 from the complainant. Hence in the above room, the opposite parties rendered deficient services by disconnecting the power supply of the premises of the complainant illegally.
  7. The Law is well settled in M/s Magma Fin crop Ltd versus Rajesh Kumar Tiwari in Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2019 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Non-service of proper notice would tantamount to deficiency in service.” Hence the complainant consumer would be entitled to compensatory damages based on an assessment of the loss caused to the complainant because of the omission to give notice. In the result, we thoughtfully considered the circumstances of the complainant, and the complaint is allowed against the opposite parties on merit.
  8. For just and proper to adjudicate the case, it is appropriate to direct the opposite party no.1 to reconsider the grievance letter dtd:18.03.2018 of the complainant. It is directed to the opposite parties to adjust the amounting of Rs.30150/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand One Hundred Fifty only), which was collected from the complainant on 18.03.2018, in the future electricity bills of the complainant. Further, the opposite parties are vicariously liable to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the Order else the Complainant is at liberty to recover the entire amount from the Opposite Parties with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e., 21.01.2019 till the actual date of realization of the same is made under the Consumer Protection Act.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

 

 

PRONOUNCED ON: 22.05.2023.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Satish Kumar Panigrahi]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Saritri Pattanaik]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.