DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
POST / DIST: Rayagada, STATE: ODISHA, Pin No. 765001.
******************
C.C.case No. 35 / 2017. Date. 26 . 3. 2021
P R E S E N T .
Sri Gadadhara Sahu, President.
Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,. Member
Sri Achyut Das, Director, S/O: L.Jayanarayana Das, AT/Po:Kasipur, Dist: Rayagada (Odisha).765 015. …Complainant.
Versus.
- The Sub-divisional Officer, Therubali Electrical Sub-division, AT/Po:Therubali, Dist: Rayagada, Pin No. 765 018 ,State:Odisha. & two others.
.…..Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: - Sri Mohan Nayak, Advocate, Rayagada..
.For the O.Ps :- Sri Ashish Kumar Panda, Deputy Manager, Legal. ,
.
JUDGEMENT
The crux of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non replacement of Electrical meter and non submission of correct bill of consumer Nos.3112220001, 31102220002,3111202220003, 31120202220004, 311202220005, 311202220006, 311202220007, 311001030126, 311201030129 for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.
Upon Notice, the O.P put in their appearance through their learned counsel and filed written version in which they 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. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated as denial of the O.P . Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against them to meet the ends of justice.
Heard from the learned counsels for the O.P. and complainant. Perused the record filed by the parties.
The learned counsel for the O.P advanced arguments vehemently touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.
FINDINGS.
Undisputedly the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps bearing consumer No. 3112220001, 31102220002,3111202220003, 31120202220004, 311202220005, 311202220006, 311202220007, 311001030126, 311201030129.
The main grievance of the complainant was that due to non replacement of defective meter correct bills was not received and disconnection notice received. Hence this C.C. case.
The O.Ps in their written version contended that all the above Meters of the complainant were replaced during the month of April, 2017 following the prevailing rule and regulation-97 of OERC Distribution supply code, 2004 by taking average consumption for three months, the bills have been revised and corrected and accordingly bills are served for payment to the complainant. The O.Ps are submitted that all the amount which has been received from the complainant has been adjusted chronologically and reflected on the monthly bill of the consumer. Hence the case may be dismissed for the best interest of justice.
In the written version the O.Ps. contented that the above complaint petition is not legally maintainable in the eye of law.
Prior to delve in to the merit of the case on outset we have to consider whether the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act ? While answering the issue we would like to refer the citation. It is held and reported in 2010 (1) CPR- 255 where in the hon’ble National Commission observed Section-3 of the C.P. Act and Section 175 of the Electricity Act provides that they are in addition and not in derogation to any other law of rights to be heard & redressal of the grievances under any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the C.P. Act are not affected by the Electricity Act. Consumer of electrical energy provided by the company, is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act and a complaint alleging any deficiency on the part of the Electrical Department including any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law or in pursuance of any contract in relation to service, is maintainable under the C.P. Act.
Accordingly answered the issue. The complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act.
The O.P. in their written version contended that the complainant before filing the present petition before the forum no point of time the complainant has approached the O.Ps for revision of bill. So the complaint petition is not maintainable.
To substantiate the above para the complainant has filed 3 Nos. of letters which was addressed to the O.Ps on different dates i.e. Dt.22.7.2013, E-mail dt. 11.3.2017, 18.3.2017 respectively which are in the file marked as Annexure-1 to 3).
The learned counsel for the complainant during the course of hearing submitted that after filing of the C.C. case the O.Ps have been replaced the defective meters of the complainant but not revised the bill accurately, but as usual the complainant has been depositing the consumption bill in the counter of the O.Ps.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
ORDER.
In resultant the complaint petition is hereby allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps.
The Electrical bills issued on Dt. 15.12.2020 towards Consumer No. 311202220001 charged to the tune of Rs.22,049/-, Consumer No. 311202220002 charged to the tune of Rs.1,20,239/-, Consumer No. 311202220003 charged to the tune of Rs.65,516/-, Consumer No. 311202220004 charged to the tune of Rs.94,411/-, Consumer No. 311202220006 charged to the tune of Rs.42,239/- are hereby quashed.
The O.Ps are directed to revise the above bills according to the actual meter reading positively.
The OPs are ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Serve the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.
The interim order passed by this Forum on Dt.29.3.2017 made final with the above direction.
Dictated and corrected by me. Pronounced on this 26th. Day of March, 2021.
Member. President
