DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                          C.C.NO.04 OF 2022

                                                                                                                            Date of Filing  : 11.04.2022

                                                                Date of Order : 25.10.2022

Sri.  Parikhita Mahakuda

S/O: Charu Chandra Mahakuda

AT-Delarpada, PO- Ratang

PS- Phiringia, Dist- Kandhamal.          …………………….. Complainant.

Versus.

1. Asst.Executive Engineer,(Elect)

TPSODL, Elctrical Section

PO/PS - Phiringia

Dist.- Kandhamal

2.  Executive Engineer,(Elect)

TPSODL, Phulbani

PO/PS- Phulbani

DIST- Kandhamal               ………………………….. Opp. Parties.

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                           Sri Sudhakar Senapothi     - Member.

For the Complainant: Manoj Kumar Sahoo & Others

For O.P.1& 2 : Harischandra Maharana

JUDGEMENT

Sri Sudhakar Senapothi, Member

            The complainant Parikhita Mahakud has filed this case U/S 35 of the CP Act 2019, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for providing him with an erratic bill in month of July 2021 and not rectifying in spite of repeated approaches and praying therein for a direction to O.Ps to rectify the erratic energy bills, pay of compensation of Rs.30, 000/- and a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards cost of litigation.

1. Brief fact to leading to the case is that the petitioner is a person of BPL category and had taken power supply from the O.Ps under RG.BPL scheme and the monthly bill was fixed at Rs.80/- per month bearing consumer No.2921/RGBPL(old) and the consumer number has been changed to 292102GW0015. The petitioner was regularly paying his dues from time to time. Suddenly in the month of July 2021, he received an energy bill wherein a sum of Rs.23,673.97/- was claimed as energy charges showing 3741 units to have been consumed by him. After receipt of the bill he lodged complaint before O.P No.1 i.e Asst. Executive Engineer Electrical Phiringia who assured him to correct it very soon. Even though the petitioner contacted him on several occasions, the OP did not rectify the bill for which he was compelled to file this case before this Commission for issue direction to the OPs to rectify the energy bill for the month of July 2021 and for payment of compensation of Rs.30, 000/- and a sum of Rs.10, 000 /-towards cost of litigation.
2. That after receipt of notice the O.Ps appeared through the Advocate but preferred not to raise any objection or to file written version.
3. The Complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of the application made to the Consumer Counseling Centre Kandhamal, copy of the energy bill for the month of July 2021, copy of the energy bill for the month of June 2021, copy of the letter issued by the Asst. executive engineer Phiringia to the SDO electrical PESD Phulbani, Copy of the energy bill for the month of January 2021, May 2021, December 2020 along with the receipts showing payment thereof. The O.Ps have

filed not a single document in support of their defence even though they appeared in the case.

4.  The only point for adjudication of the case is whether the petitioner received an erratic bill in the month of June 2021 and also entitled for revision thereof?

It is seen from the energy bills filed by the complainant for the period from Dec 2022 till June 2021 that the petitioner was paying a sum of Rs. 80/- per month regularly towards energy charges from time to time. The bill issued for

the month of July 2021 goes to show that the previous reading was 450 where as the present reading has been shown as 4191 and the consumption is 3741 units. After receipt of intimation from the consumer counseling centre the O.P No.1 has sent a letter bearing no.34 dated 01.02.2022 in which he has requested the SDO Electrical PESD Phulbani for necessary action at his end.  So it is very much clear from the previous bill and subsequent bills that the petitioner being a person of BPL category has never used so much power and was using power to the extent the bill of which is around Rs.80/- per month regularly. The O.Ps even though appeared in this case and several adjournments were granted to them, they remained silent and did not challenge the allegations advanced by the petitioner. As the O.Ps did not challenge the allegations raised against them. It is deemed that they have admitted the allegations raised by the complainant. The OPs did not take any steps to settle the allegation made by a person of BPL category for which they are liable for causing deficiency in service and are also equally liable for dragging him to an unnecessary litigation and hence the order.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed against the O.Ps on contest. The O.Ps are directed to delete a sum of Rs.23,673.97/- from the energy bill for the month of July 2021 and collect a sum of Rs.80/- from the petitioner for the month of July 2021 and revise all the subsequent bills accordingly. The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment to the complainant and a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.       

                I Agree

            PRESIDENT                                                                  MEMBER

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 25^th day of October 2022 in the presence of the parties.

            PRESIDENT                                                                  MEMBER