Date of filing:- 24/04/2018.
Date of Order:-16/01/2020.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 40 of 2018
Sushil Kumar Deheri, S/o Late Bimbadhar Deheri, R/o W.No.13(thirteen), At/Po/Dist. Bargarh (Odisha) ..... ..... ..... .... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
The S.D.O., Electrical, Sub-Division No.1(one), WESCO Utility, At/Po/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri B.Panda, Advocate with associate Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- :-Sri T.C.Tripathy, Advocate with associate Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.16/01/2020. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case :-
The case of the Complainant against the Opposite Party in brief is that his father was a Consumer of the Opposite Party vide his Consumer No.D4-L-2/3 initially but subsequently it has changed as No-512122060045 and was paying Rs.40/-(Rupees forty)only per month and after his death on Dt.15.06.1998, the house wherein the connection was provided was locked without any consumption of the electrical energy till 2016 when the present Complainant, being his son wanted to occupy the house wherein the said connection was installed, and asked the Opposite Party to provide him with a fresh connection he was refused on the ground that an outstanding provisional bill is pending against the said premises.
In furtherance to his case on being asked by the Opposite Party the Complainant submitted an application stating therein that since his father is dead and after that the house was locked without any consumption of the power, a fresh average bill be issued with him rectifying the old one, and consequent upon which a staff namely Er. B.D.Barik was deputed for physical verification of the premises accordingly the said Er. verified the premises and submitted a report on Dt.10.10.2017 with a finding that the meter status is found OK & sealed and load limit is within Limit hence a revised bill as per actual meter reading be issued. And subsequently thereafter the actual consumption has never crossed 40(forty) unit and billing amount was around Rs.100/-(Rupees one hundred)only to Rs.200/-(Rupees two hundred)only per month accordingly the Complainant paid the same till Dt.21.03.2018, but in spite of the submission of the physical verification report submitted by their own engineer the said pending bill has not yet been rectified, thus the claim of the Complainant is that such acts of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiencies of service for which he has suffered mentally and has filed the case claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only and has also claimed not to stop supply of electricity to his said premises. And in support of his said claims has relied on the following documents.
Xerox Copy of bill card in name of Bimbadhara Deheri.
Xerox copy of application Dt.29/11/2016 tp S.D.O., Electrical.
Xerox copy of Physical verification report Dt.10/410/2017.
Xerox copy of Death certificate of Bimbadhara Deheri.
Xerox copy of bill for Nov-17, May-16, March-18, Feb-18, Aug-17, Sep-17.
Money receipts.
Perused the Complaint, it’s accompanied documents and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and Notice was served on the Opposite Party and in response the Opposite Party appeared before the Forum through his Advocate and filed his version.
The version filed by the Opposite Party is a complete denial to the case of the Complainant beside that has claimed that the case is not maintainable in the Forum since the case comes under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and in view of the decision of the Apex court of the country in Anish Ahamad case reported in A.I.R 2013, and has stated therein that the Opposite Party has never committed any deficiencies in rendering any service to the Complainant rather has claimed that the house in question was never locked and was in active consumption of the energy as such the bill raised against the same is justified one and the Complainant is bound to pay the same for an amount of Rs.1,14,052/-(Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand fifty two)only as has been assessed by the authority on the application of the Complainant rebutting all other allegation of the Complainant, and has relied on some voluminous documents.
Having gone through the Complaint petition, and documents filed by the Complainant and the version filed by the Opposite Party along with the documents vividly and on hearing the learned counsels for the respective Parties it came to our notice that the father of the Complainant has died on the date as per the claim of the Complainant and also by the life time of his deceased father a bill card was issued by the department of the Opposite Party fixing for an amount of bill amounting to Rs.40/-(Rupees forty)only per month vide his Consumer No-D4-L-2/3, and also from the materials available in the record that subsequent to his death billing amount on the actual consumption was being issued for amounting to Rs. 200/-(Rupees two hundred) only per month on an average but later on it is found from the bill that the amount of billing has raised to a maximum amount to which the Complainant has raised his objection and has applied for fresh verification by the Opposite Party and accordingly the Opposite Party has conducted physical verification of the concerned meter through his authorized Engineer and also it reveals from the physical verification report of the said Engineer that the meter was OK being sealed properly and also the load of the same is within limit and has reported to change the said meter on Dt.15.03.2017 and to revise the bill, out of which it is clear that the allegation of the Opposite Party implicating the Complainant U/s 126 and others are fictitious and a plea without any basis as such the cited decision of the Opposite Party is not applicable in this present context .
Furthermore the bill submitted has not been revised even if being reported by his own deputed staff, so to our vigilant observation the arrear bill issued seems to be improbable which needs to be rectified as has claimed by the Complainant and in the present juncture his plea of the non-use of the electricity energy after the death of his father cannot be ruled out, in furtherance to our observation the claim of the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party that the bill has been revised does not reveals from the materials placed before us in the Forum, in view of the above facts and circumstances in our conscious and consensus view is expressed in favor of the Complainant and as the Opposite Party has not taken any steps in redressing the dispute of the Complainant even if being reported by his own deputed Engineer who has physically verified the said premises and the concerned meter in question, we are of the view that his such acts amounts to deficiencies of service against the Complainant on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence our order follows.
O R D E R.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Opposite Parties is directed to revise the billing amount on the basis of preceding three months bill of actual consumption of the electricity energy supplied to the said premises vide Consumer No. 512122060045 of the deceased father of the Complainant and issue him with fresh bill within thirty days from the receipt of the order and also further directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only in lieu of his mental agony within the said period.
In the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party and the same being pronounced in the open Forum is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt.16/01/2020.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W).
Uploaded by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant, Bargarh.
