JUDGEMENT

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. This Complaint is filed by the complainant named above being aggrieved on the notice issued to him threatening disconnection of electricity to his residential premises and for not responding of his grievance made in writing to the Ops inter alia alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of Ops resulting violation of consumer right & caused mental agony to the complainant.
2. Complainant seeks for an order directing the O.Ps to restrain them from issuing of illegal & arbitral disconnection notice and to recall the arrear levied there against the complainant since April 2023 and further prayed for an award of compensation of Rs 45,000/- towards suffering of financial burden & mental agony which include litigation cost of Rs.10,000 and to declared  the acts of the Ops as Unfair Trade Practice & Deficient Services and further prayed for all other relief(s) as the Commission may deemed fit & proper .
3. The facts of the complaint in brief are that, the father of the complainant namely Prof. Bhubaneswar Behera has availed electricity connection to his residential premises at Mahabirpada ,Bhawanipatna for domestic purpose vide Consumer No.903511070177 corresponding to Old Account No. DOM-7A-45 612050420 who passed away on 17.04.2023 is survived by his son Dr.Malaya Kumar Behera, the complainant. The complainant is resides in the same premises with his family and continues to avail supply of electricity render by the Ops for consideration till date with afore said same consumer number. The complainant being an old aged ailing person is bed –ridden since 2020 is represented through his son/beneficiary Prabhav Behera. Proof of identity & resident of complainant is annexed as annexure -1 series. The complainant has been receiving regular electricity bill based on actual meter reading for consumption of electricity and the corresponding electricity due as demanded by the Ops time to time were /are being regularly paid without fail and there is no arrears payable to the Ops, accordingly, there was “ZERO” arrear reflected in the account of the complainant till March 2023. Bill dt. 15/04/2023 for the month of March 2023 is annexed as annexure -2. It is alleged that, the Ops issued a bill No. 903120523000017M248 dt. 12/05/2023 for the period from 16/04/2023 to 12/05/2023 arbitrarily showing arrears of Rs.7594.62/-.Bill dt. 12/05/2023 for the month of March 2023 is annexed as annexure -3 is under challenged. It is further alleged that, no reasons were afforded or notice was served on the complainant explaining the ground on which the aforementioned arrears is levied. The complainant, on being aggrieved upon said Bill dt. 12/05/2023 vide annexure -3 ,put forth his grievance in writing vide letter dt.14/05/2023 through registered speed post to the OP 2 requesting therein to revise/correct the said bill dt. dt. 12/05/2023 and further requested to correct & substitute the consumer  name in the bills which is duly received by the Ops authority but it is not responded for which the complainant in person met the concerned S.D.O & Junior Engineer of the Ops  for redressal of his grievance but Ops have neither replied to the said grievance letter nor have taken any step to correct the arrears bill levied on the complainant so also no steps has been taken by the Ops authority for correction of the name of consumer by substituting  beneficiary/ legal heirs of deceased Prof.B.Behera . The grievance letter dt.14/05/2023 sent through registered speed post to the Ops authority along with postal receipt dt.15/05/2023 is annexed as annexure 4 series. It is further alleged that, the Ops without addressing the grievance of the complainant have been issuing disconnection notices dt. 11/07/2023,                            dt.13/08/23, dt.12/09/2023 vide annexure -5 series demanding there in to clear the arrears immediately to avoid disconnection of power supply to the residence of the complainant caused financial burden & mental agony to the complainant .However the complainant has been paying current bill based on the actual meter reading and no arrear is payable to the Ops as on date. It is further alleged that, on dt. 26/07/2023 and on 30/08/2023  a group of persons identified themselves to be the squad of Op 1(one)  visited to the premises of the complainant and got verified the installed meter & supply point .On finding no infirmities ,they demanded the arrears bill threatening disconnection of electricity supply to the complainant while the grievance of the complainant remains unheard is still pending before OP 2(two)  is not only unfair trade practice but also amounts to decency in service there on the part of the Ops caused financial burden & mental agony.  Hence this complaint.
4. On being notice, the Ops appeared through their learned counsel Sri N.R.Mishra but failed to file their written version within the stipulated period of time as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019 . The written version filed in a belated stage is not accepted vide order dt. 28.12.23 of this commission in view of order dt.04.03.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Ltd. However, Ops are allowed to take part in the hearing & further proceeding of this case without written version.
5. Heard .Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission & notes of arguments  of the rival parties
6. During hearing of this complaint the Opp.Parties filed their evidence on affidavit of one Sri. Manas Ranjan Mathi ,the executive Engineer (Elect.),Bhawanipatna, admitting the facts that, the Ops are the representative of the TPWODL supplying & distributing electricity  in the Western Odisha and further stated there in the affidavit that, the final assessment figure that amount to the pending arrears for the consumption is Rs. 6773.43 & not 7594.62 as the same has been adjusted subtracting the previous provisional bill units with actual consumed units for the consumer as per record available in their office  as such the question of unfair trade practice does not arise and there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OP Bank. It is further stated that, the current case is pertaining to provisional billing which was done as per the actual unit which were not recorded during the disputed period of billing i.e from the month of July 2020 to Aug 2021 but were later in the month of Sept 2021 after the defective meter was replaced by new meter from the premises of the complainant. In April 2023 when the correct units were billed , the complainant received the electricity bill comprising of units used in the monthly bill cycle & the units used in previous months in a single bill after deducting the amount already paid for those months. The bill in the month of 2023 was done on the basis of actual units consumed by the complainant and there is no unfair trade practice adopted by the Ops. It is further stated that, as per the available principle governing the field of verification i.e. Regulation 150 & 155 of the OERC Distribution (Condition of Supply)Code 2019 revision of bill of the complainant amounting to Rs.6773.04 reflected in the bill stand good in accordance with the law and require no interference by this Hon’ble Commission and that, this Ops were in no position to revise/correct the said impugned bill or withdraw the arrear as the same has been billed on the basis of actual meter reading for consumption of electricity and the same is liable to be paid on the part of the consumer. The OP with regard to the correction and substitution of the consumers name contended that, such modification is precluded for consumer with outstanding arrears documented in their account. Consequently the request for a name change remains un-address, alleging with the regulatory constrained pertaining to consumers with existing arrears and that, upon meticulous scrutiny it has been determine that as per the regulatory provision, the alteration of a consumer name is contingent upon the regulation of any outstanding arrears associated with the consumers account. Consequently the correction request is predicted on the prerequisite clearance of all outstanding financial obligations and that, the delay in addressing the grievance is not indicating of callousness but rather a procedural adherence to regulatory norms.
7. Law is well settled that, in absence of pleading, evidence if any, produced by parties cannot be considered. No party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings.(AIR 2014  SC 1290) .As such the evidence affidavit Sri. Manas Ranjan Mathi, the executive Engineer (Elect.),Bhawanipatna adduced on behalf of the Ops is not  acceptable & cannot be  taken in to consideration.
8. Here the doctrine of non –traverse will rightly applicable as non of the allegation made by the complainant are ever disputed or traversed by the O.P in any manner .Law is well settled that ,where the O.ps have not filed a pleading it shall be law full for the court to pronounced judgment on the basic of the fact contend in the plaint except as against the person under a disability (Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in  M.Venkataramana Hebbar Vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Others, Lohia Properties (P) Ltd Vs. Atmaram Kumar).
9. However, Section 38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide a complaint on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider, irrespective of whether the service provider adduced evidence or not the decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. Thus, onus through is on the complainant making allegation.
10. To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the following documents:- (i) Proof of identity & resident of complainant is annexed as annexure -1 series, (ii) Bill dt. 15/04/2023 for the month of March 2023 is annexed as annexure -2 series. (iii) Bill dt. 12/05/2023 for the month of March 2023 is annexed as annexure -3 series is under challenged. (iv)The grievance letter dt.14/05/2023 sent through registered speed post to the OP 2 along with postal receipt dt.15/05/2023 is annexed as annexure 4 series.(v) disconnection notices dt. 11/07/2023,dt.13/08/23,dt.12/09/2023 vide annexure -5 series.(vii) Medical certificate with respect to health condition of the complainant vide annexure-6.(viii) Self attested true copy of order dt. 29.06.2020 passed by the learned G.R.F .Bolangir in Complaint Case No. 374 of 2020 vide annexure-6.The complaint petition is supported with an affidavit of the complainant.
11. The  contention of  complaint petition is proved by filling additional affidavit evidence of one Prabhav Behera the beneficiary/son of the complainant averment of which are  corroborating with the averment of the complaint petition remain un -rebutted  is taken in to consideration.
12. Ld. Counsel for the Ops citing the judgement dt.30.03.2012 passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Cuttack in Appeal No. 1342/2003 , the judgement passed by the Hon;ble Supreme court in Whirlpool Corporation vrs Registrar of Trade Mark, Mumbai, the  Judgement  passed in Haryana State Electricity Board vrs Mam Chand, the  judgement passed in U.P Power Corporation Ltd vrs. Anish Ahmed and on the latest order  dt.16/05/2023 passed by the  Hon’ble High Court Odisha in W.P( c )  No. 1704 of 2020 urged to dismiss this complainant as  not maintainable before this Commission which we have gone thoroughly.
13. Law is well settled that, a complaint against the assessment made by the assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Section 135 to 140 of Electricity act 2003 is not maintainable before the consumer forum.
14.  Here the Ops failed to proved that, there is any assessment made under section 126 or action taken against the complainant for committing any offences under Ss 135 to 140 0f Electricity Act 2003 or have any decision of appellate authority under S.127 is passed against which this complaint is presented does not come under the preview of deficiency of service & unfair trade practice rather it is found here that, the grievance of the complainant is different.
15. It may not be disputed that, Indian Parliament is well aware of the existing laws of the nation while enacting Consumer Protection Act 2019 wherein Sect.100 contains as follows:-“Act not in derogation of any other law:- “The Provision of this Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force”. As such we are of the opinion that, there is no bar to entertain this consumer complaint where the complainant being a beneficiary has alleged deficient service & unfair trade practice there on the part of the Ops for illegal revision of bill made on the back & behind of the consumer and for non response of his grievances made in writing before the Ops authority.
16. The submission of Ld.Consel for Ops that, this  District Consumer Commission should not entertain the dispute relating to the Electricity Act as because there is an alternative forum available under the Electricity Act 2003 to redress the grievance of the consumer is not acceptable rather it is here by rejected.
17. The complainant being the son of the deceased consumer vides Consumer No.903511070177 corresponding to Old Account No. DOM-7A-45 612050420 residing in the same premises has been consuming electricity being supplied by the Ops for consideration is not disputed as such the complainant is coming under section 2(5)(vi)  of C.P Act for which  submission of Ops that, the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint claiming status of the consumer is not acceptable rather rejected .
18. On perusal of material available on the record it is found that, an extra financial burden is placed on the complainant by debiting Rs.7,594.62 in the account of the complainant though the last electricity bill clearly shows that, bill were prepared basing on actual meter reading . The bill dt.15.4.2023 for the period of 13.3.2023 to 15.4.2023 (Annexure -2 of the complaint petition ) clearly shows net arrear of Rs.-0.23/- and it is further seen that, current bill as on 15.4.2023 was Rs.1015.28 payable before rebate date was Rs.993/- which was duly paid by the complainant on 18.4.2023 vide money receipt No.657550180423COAP0092 remain undisputed.
19. The bill for consumption of electricity issued  by the OPs to the consumer time to time shows that, those were/are prepared based on actual meter reading and that, the  bill dt15.04.2023 (Anexure-2 of the complaint petition clearly shows the arrear payable as Rs.-0.23 but here the Ops submits contradict to their own bill saying that, previous bills were prepared provisionally for which bill revision as per regulation 150 & 155 of the OERC Distribution(Condition of Supply)Code 2019 is conducted where it is found that, consumer is to pay Rs.6773.04 reflected in the bill dt15.04.2023 which  has been shown as arrear stand good in accordance with the law and require no interference by this Hon’ble Commission is not acceptable .
20. It is further seen in the bill dt.12.05.2023 for the period of 16.4.2023 to 12.05.2023 vide Annexure 3 of the complaint petition that, after Bill Rev.Adj (B) an amount of Rs.7,594.62 is Debited to the account of the complainant  along with current bill of Rs.859.80 fixed as per actual meter reading .
21. The contention of the complainant that , no reasons were afforded or notice was served on the complainant explaining the ground on which the amount of Rs.7,594.62 is Debited to the account of the complainant & levied as arrears is proved on affidavit remain un-rebutted .Nothing material available on record to hold that, the complainant has ever informed or heard during revision of bill or before debiting such a huge amount of Rs.7594.62 in the bill dt.12.05.2023 prepared  for the period of 16.4.2023 to 12.05.2023 vide annexure -3 of the complainant petition when it is not disputed that, the previous bill were/ is made based on actual meter reading and in last bill dt.15.04.2023 (Annexure -2 of the complainant petition)  there was net arrear was Rs.-0.23.In  such fact and circumstances, we are of the opinion that, revision of bill made on the behind & back of the consumer without being heard  to the consumer and debit of Rs.7594.62 in bill dt.12.05.2023 vide annexure -3 & levied it as arrears is arbitral and not proper certainly caused financial burden and mental agony to the complainant liable to be quashed and  waived from the account of the complainant.
22. This Commission is of the opinion that, such an arbitral bill dt.12.05.2023 vide annexure -3 issued to the complainant and notice threatening disconnection of electricity connection to the premises of the complainant demanding said amount of Rs.7594.62 in bill dt.12.05.2023 vide annexure -3 as arrear is not proper rather it clearly proved the unfair trade practice there on the party of the Ops.
23. Law is well settle that , the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation enacted to protect the interest of the consumers and it is an additional remedy available to the consumers to redress their grievance.
24. It is not disputed that ,the complainant  has put forth his grievance in writing through registered speed post vide RP Consignment No.PO606134625IN dt.15.05.2023 to the Executive Engineer (Elect )Kalahandi/OP2 with a prayer to set aside the said arrears of financial burden shown in the bill dt.12.05.2023 vide Annexure -3 of the complainant petition and further remind his previous representation made to SDO(Electrical) No.1 WESCO and once again requested to change the name of consumer to Dr.Malaya Kumar Behera,  S/o -deceased consumer Prop. B.B.Behera so also received of said grievance of the complainant is not disputed by the Ops but no material is placed on record to hold that said grievance petition vide Annexure 4 of the complaint petition has ever been heard by the Ops .
25. During hearing of  this case the ops have admitted the facts that , complainant’s  grievance letter was duly acknowledged and it was correctly examined however the requested correction & substitution of consumers name and redressal of alleged illegal arrear is subject to prevailing regulation & financial status of concern consumer and consequently correction request is predicted on the prerequisite clearance of all outstanding financial obligation and that the delayed  in addressing the grievance is not indicative of callousness rather a procedural adherence to require  norms is not justified . Hence it is not acceptable as it goes against the interest of the consumer who has right to be heard and to be assured that consumer’s interest will receive due consideration.
26.  This Commission is of the opinion that, every consumers has right to redress his grievance and the Ops/ Service Provide  is duty bound to heard the grievance of consumers on time  denial of which &  sitting over the grievance of the consumer is certainly an acts of unfair trade practice &  proved deficient  service there on the part of the Ops certainly caused mental agony to the consumer cannot be denied.
27. This complaint is presented on 05/10/2023 before this Commission when the grievance of the complainant dt 14.05.2023 made in writing to the Ops authority is not responded as such this complaint is found well on time as prescribed under C.P. Act 2019.The complainant is residing within the district of Kalahandi as such this complaint is found well within the jurisdiction of this Commission and well maintainable under the C.P.Act 2019.
28. Based on above discussion this Commission is of the opinion that, bill dt.12.05.2023 (vide annexure -3 of the complaint petition) issued to the complainant debiting Rs.7594.62 to the account of the consumer is not proper rather arbitral is liable to be  quash and notice threatening disconnection of electricity connection to the premises of the complainant demanding said amount of Rs.7594.62 as arrear is not proper liable to be  waived. So also non respond of the  grievance of consumers on time  &  sitting over the grievance of the consumer is an acts of unfair trade practice &  deficient  service proved there on the part of the Ops certainly caused financial burden & mental agony cannot be denied for which the Ops are jointly & severely liable to compensate the complainant. However, the claim of the complainant is of higher side as such allowed in part. Hence it is order.

                                                                O R D E R

This consumer complaint is allowed in part against the Ops on contest with following directions:-

The Opposite Parties are hereby directed to recall the arrear levied there against the complainant vide Consumer No.903511070177 corresponding to Old Account No. DOM-7A-45 612050420 since April 2023 and to restrain them from issuing of such illegal & arbitral disconnection notice and further directed to take necessary steps as prescribed for correction of the name of consumer by substituting the beneficiary/ legal heirs of deceased Prof.B.Behera and to pay compensation of Rs 25,000/- towards suffering of financial burden & mental agony to the complainant which includes cost of this litigation

The Opposite Party  are  further  directed  to make compliance of the  aforesaid order within  four weeks  from the  date of  receipt  of this  order falling which the Opposite Party shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 200/-(Two hundred) per day to the complainant for delayed compliance  till compliance of this order.

  Dictated & corrected by me.

Sd/-

          President.                                                                       

                            I agree.

       Sd/-                                      

Member.

  Pronounced in open forum today on this 18^th  day of  April 2024  under the seal and signature of this Commission .

 The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

 Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly.