WESCO through its Executive Engineer V/S Sanjeev Kumar Subudhi
Sanjeev Kumar Subudhi filed a consumer case on 12 Feb 2009 against WESCO through its Executive Engineer in the Bargarh Consumer Court. The case no is CC/32/07 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Orissa
Bargarh
CC/32/07
Sanjeev Kumar Subudhi - Complainant(s)
Versus
WESCO through its Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)
TRINATH SAHOO AND N.SAHOO
12 Feb 2009
ORDER
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT) DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT),AT:COURT PREMISES,PO/DIST:BARGARH,PIN:768028,ORISSA consumer case(CC) No. CC/32/07
Sanjeev Kumar Subudhi
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
S.D.O.(COMMERCE) WESCO through its Executive Engineer
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA 2. SHRI BINOD KUMAR PATI 3. SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. TRINATH SAHOO AND N.SAHOO
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. SRI J.P.SINGH,SRI B.P.SINGH,SRI D.CHINDA,SRI R.SETH AND SRI D.BIBHAR
ORDER
Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President. The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief facts is as follows:- The Complainant is the proprietor of M/s Krishna Polymer Pvt. Ltd, Bargarh where in polythene bags and pipes are manufactured. The Opposite Parties are the officers of western Orissa Electricity company, who has supplied electricity power to the Complainant's Mini Industry as such the Complainant is a consumer of Opposite Parties bearing consumer No. 412001040019. The Complainant has paid all the Bill amount till February-2007 and no out standing dues is pending against the Complainant. The Complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 21,967/-(Rupees twenty one thousand nine hundred sixty seven)only on Dt. 16/03/2007 for the month of February-2007 vide bill No.1625. In spite of payment of bills and no any out standing bill is pending, the Opposite Party No.1(one) disconnected the electric line to the Complainant's unit on Dt. 23/03/2007 with out any prior intimation or notice to him with an ulterior and malafide motive. The Complainant contends that, the Complainant has requested the Opposite Parties in writing to remove the electric line passing over the residential house of the Complainant as because no person is interested to reside in that house for the dangerous position of that electric line. In spite of removal of the electric line over his residential house, the Opposite Parties being angerstiken ultimately disconnected the electric line of the factory. Further the Complainant contends that, with out any intimation before issue of the bill, the Opposite Parties have issued an inflated bill for the month of January-2007. On 20/07/2007 again the Opposite Parties came to the factory of the Complainant to disconnect the power supply for non-payment of inflated bill. As per the demand of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant thought to save from losses due to disconnection of power supply paid Rs. 45,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only on Dt. 20/07/2007. This Complainant has filed a case on Dt. 20/07/2007 before Appellate Authority, Sambalpur challenging the penal bill for the month of June-2007 wherein the Appellate Authority in its Order Dt. 29/08/2007 quashed the entire penal bill and directed the Opposite Parties to adjust the amount of Rs. 45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand)only the subsequent bill of the Complainant. In spite of several request for removal of main electric line passing over the residential house of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties disconnected the power supply of Complainant's factory has committed a serious beach of duty which amounts to deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant. According to Complainant, he suffered mental agony and a heavy loss incurred in his business which is quantified at Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only. Accordingly he preyed that, electricity connection be got restored immediately to the unit and damages Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only be awarded to him. On being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared and filed version jointly through their Advocate. In its version the Opposite Parties, admitted that, the Complainant is a consumer of Opposite Parties and had paid the bill regularly as per actual consumption and paid a sum of Rs. 21,967/-(Rupees twenty one thousand nine hundred sixty seven)only for the month of February-2007 vide bill No. 1625 on Dt. 11/03/2007 and denied all other allegation of the complaint petition. Further the Opposite Parties denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant. The Opposite Parties contends that on Dt. 23/03/2007 at about 1 A.M. the checking squad while checking the supply system of the Complainant's unit, they found that, the Complainant is taking electricity power to his unit in a dishonest manner by hooking process. When the squad wanted to check the supply system of the unit one Bijaya Dash and Santosh came in the motor cycle to the gate of the factory and Santosh jumped in side and tried to remove the hooking process there by flash occurred due to short circuit of electrical wire causing complete darkness of the area. The squad carried out maintenance work and supplied power to that area. Thereafter the S.D.O., Electrical prepared an inspection report which was refused to received by the Complainant. So a copy of the inspection report was affixed in the main gate of the factory. The matter was reported at Policy Station, Bargarh through post which was registered as P.S. Case No.120(3) Dt. 05/04/2007 and now the case is pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Bargarh for disposal. The Opposite Parties contends, as the G.R. Case arising out of same cause of action is pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Bargarh for disposal, this present disputes is not maintainable. The Opposite Parties are not guilty in deficiency in service towards Complainant and in order to avoid criminal liability and to create evidence in his favour, the Complainant has filed the case on false allegation and prays for dismissal of the case with cost. We have gone through the complaint petition, Opposite Parties's version as well as copies of documents filed by the Parties in respective of their case and find as follows:- The Complainant is a consumer being his consumer No. 412001040019 under the Opposite Parties and power is being supplied to his factory for manufacturing of polythene bags and pipes is not disputed by the Parties. It is also not disputed that the Complainant has paid Rs.21,967/-(Rupees twenty one thousand nine hundred sixty seven)only on Dt. 16/03/2007, the bill amount for the month of February-2007 vide bill No.1625. The xerox copies of the said bill and receipt is filed which shows no any arrear is out standing against the Complainant's unit. It is the say of the Complainant that, in spite of payment of the bills issued by the Opposite Parties and no any arrear is out standing against the industry, the Opposite Parties with an ulterior motive disconnected the service line of the Complainant's unit on Dt. 23/03/2007. No any notice was given to the Complainant before disconnection. The Opposite Parties denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant and averred that, the Complainant was taking electric power to his factory in a dishonest manner by hooking process. When the checking squad on Dt. 23/03/2007 wanted to check the electrical installation of the factory and asked to open the gate one Santosh jumped over the gate, went inside the factory tried to remove the hooking process than there was severe flash from the tapping paint and another person Bijaya Dash telephoned the Complainant. An inspection report was prepared which was denied to receive by the Complainant so the Opposite Parties affixed a copy of the inspection report at the main gate of the factory. Matter was reported at the Bargarh Policy Station, which was registered as P.S. Case No. 120(3) dated 05/04/2007 and now the case is pending in the court of S.D.J.M. For disposal. The Opposite Parties has filed the xerox copy of documents in support of his case. No any evidence is filed by the Complainant to disprove the case of the Opposite Parties. As per prayer of the Complainant an interim order was issued against the Opposite Parties to restore power supply to the factory of the Complainant immediately. The Opposite Parties preferred a Revision Case No. 61 of 2007 before the Hon'ble State Commission against the Order Dt. 29/03/2007 passed by this Forum where in its order No.2 Dt. 02/07/2007 directed this Complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand)only within three weeks the Opposite Parties who shall restore the power supply to the unit of the Complainant. As per the order, the Complainant has deposited the amount on Dt. 20/07/2007 vide money receipt No. 06/6314015 and the power was supplied by the Opposite Parties. In respect of the inflated bill as alleged by the Complainant for the month of June-2007 amounting to Rs. 1,27,976/-(Rupees one lac twenty seven thousand nine hundred seventy six)only which includes the arrear of Rs. 93,020/-(Rupees nine three thousand twenty)only, out of which the Complainant has paid Rs. 45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand)only on Dt. 20/07/2007 to the Opposite Parties. After payment of the amount on Dt. 20/07/2007 he approached before the Appellate Authority, Sambalpur challenging the said inflated bill wherein the Appellate Authority in its Order Dt. 29/08/2007 quashed the entire penal bill and directed the Opposite Parties to adjust the amount paid by the Complainant in subsequent bill. The order Dt. 29/08/2007 passed by the Applleate Authority, Sambalpur is an ex-parte Order and against the said Order the Opposite Parties have approached before the Hon'ble High Court, vide W.P.C No. 1798/08 which is pending for disposal. Moreover, although the Opposite Parties have issued an inflated bill during the pendency of this case, the Complainant has not filed any memo stating the fact of the inflated bill before the Forum. The Complainant has also not filed any evidence either in shape of affidavit or in any other form to challenge the allegation of theft of electricity energy alleged by the Opposite Parties. In the circumstances we believed the version of the Opposite Parties. Since electricity power has been supplied to the factory of the Complainant by the Opposite Parties as per the Order in Rev. case No. 61 of 2007 of the Hon'ble State Commission no any further direction be made to the Opposite Parties for reconnection. The Complainant shall go on paying the subsequent electric bill regularly to avoid disconnection of supply of electricity. The Opposite Party shall not charge the amount of inflated electricity bill for the month of July-2007 till the disposal of W.P.C. NO. 1798/2008, pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Orissa. In view of above discussion the case is disposed of. No cost.
......................MISS BHAGYALAXMI DORA ......................SHRI BINOD KUMAR PATI ......................SHRI GOURI SHANKAR PRADHAN
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.