Orissa

Rayagada

CC/244/2016

Sri Biswajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The S.D.O. Electrical - Opp.Party(s)

Self

04 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 244 / 2016.                                                       Date.       4  .     5  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       Preident.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                                                       Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                              Member.

 

Sri Biswajit Singh, S/O: Sri Hrushikesh Singh, At: Near N.V.R.School, Saipriya Nagafr, Po/   Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                          …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Sub-divisional Officer,  SOUTH.CO.,  Electrial Sub-Division, Rayagada.

2.The  Junior Engieer, SOUTH.CO.,  Electrial Section, Rayagada.

                                                                                                            .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri P.Arun Kumar, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri  Ashish  Panda, Deputy Manager(Legal), Rayagada.

.

JUDGMENT

                The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non revision excess demand Electrical bill bearing consumer No.311102120170, old account No. OID-24525 for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

On being noticed the O.Ps appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

  Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps bearing consumer No.311102120170, old account No. OID-24525.

The main  grievance of the complainant  was that excess bill amount a  sum of Rs.45,266/- was sent to the complainant  by the O.Ps during the month of  May, 2016.

The O.Ps  in  their written version  para-4 contended that  the electricity consumption bill which has been raised is correct  and  as per the meter reading. Due to suppress meter reading in connivance of meter reader and consumer, the meter reading regarding  consumption of every month was abnormal low.   After knowledge of the same and as per the data regarding suppress meter reading submitted by the meter reader, being authorized under Regulation92(i) of the OERC distribution code, 2004 the licensee revised the bill and demanded the consumer in the month of  May, 2016 for payment.  (copies of the billing statement is in the file marked as Annexure-I).

 The O.Ps  in  their written version  para-5 contended that  after  receiving  the  revised  bill the consumer was  requested the O.Ps for  revision of bill. Considering his request and to know the status of the meter, an inspection was  done by the concerned Jr. Engineer and Vigilence & Enforcement  Officer. On their inspection report it is reflected that the status of the meter is OK and the consumer is consuming the electricity   more than  his contract demand. (Copies of the inspection report  submitted by the concerned  J.E. and Vigilence officer  are in the file  marked  as   Annexure – 2 & 3).

The complainant to counter the above  allegation has not filed  any supporting document  in their favour.

This forum completely agreed with views taken  and the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled any  relief from this forum and   liable to be dismissed. To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

 

ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. In the circumstances there is no order as to cost.    Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

If the complainant  is  not satisfied with the above order he  is  at  liberty  free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.  

           

            Further this  forum ordered  the OPs not to claim any amount   towards bill Dt. 10.06.2016 a sum of Rs. 46,447/- as demanded  by them bearing consumer No.311102120170 and they can only claim the complainant the regular consumption bill  till finalization of the petition by the  competent/appellate authority  if the complainant prefers for any relief with in the period of limitation in the proper court of law having jurisdiction.

            “The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583  the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed   the above  point.

The interim order passed  on Dt.22.8.2016   by this forum  made final with the above direction.

Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this         4th..   Day of   May,  2018.

 

Member.                                             Member.                                                             President