DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C NO. 09 OF 2014
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President
Miss Sudhira Laxmi pattanaik - Member .
Sri Chakadola Mallick - Member.
1. Manohar Mallick, aged about 54 years,
Son of Late Sudarshan Mallick,
Village- Musuguda PO: Dalapada,
PS: Khajuripada Dist: Kandhamal (Phulbani)
At present secretary, Dist. Wholesale Co. Op. Store, Phulbani
At/PO/DIST: Kandhamal
2. Dhirendra kumar Sahani, aged about 54 years,
Son of Late Gopal Prasad Sahani,
At phulbani Sahi, PO: Contractorpada,
PS: Phulbani Town, Dist: Kandhamal
At Present- Branch manager, Boudh Co. Op.
Central bank Ltd., phulbani Branch,
At/ Po/Dist; Phulbani …………….. Complainants.
Versus.
1. Executive Engineer, (Elect),
SOUTH CO., Phulbani
At/PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: kandhamal .
2. Sub- Divisional Officer (Elect)
SOUTHCO. Phulbani
At/PO/PS: Phulbani, Dist: kandhamal .
3. Junior Engineer (Elect)
SOUTH CO., Phulbani,
At/PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: kandhamal. ……………….. Opp. Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri R.K Pradhan, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties: Sri H.C. Maharana, Advocate.
Date of Order: 27-03-2015
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in short is that the Complainant No.1 is working as the Secretary District, Whole Sale Co-Op. Store, Phulbani
-2-
having Consumer No. 292101180003( 10003/C-75/1) for the building where Boudh Co-Op. Central bank Phulbani branch is functioning . The Complainant No.2 is working as Branch Manager of the said bank. On 19-03-2014 the Opposite Party No.3 gave disconnection Notice under Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Revised) to the Complainant No.1 with a direction to deposit Rs. 56,016/- within 15 days which was outstanding against the bank othrwise the power supply shall be disconnected and the power supply shall not be restored until the said dues along with reconnection fees of Rs. 400/- are paid. On 01-09-2004 the then Branch manager of the Bank intimated to the Opp. Party No.1 that no arrear was outstanding against the Bank at any point of time. Thereafter, regular energy charge was deposited by the Bank. It is further case of the Complainant is that in the year 1986 the bank was functioning at a rented house and the Consumer No. was separate and not in the name of the bank. The Owner of the said rented house was the Consumer under the Opposite Parties and all the dues had been fully paid by the bank upto the date of vacation. So, the demand of arrear after long period is illegal. Hence, they filed this complaint for a direction to waive out the arrear amount as claimed illegal with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and mental agony of the Complainant.
The case of the Opposite Parties as per their joint version is that the outstanding amount Rs. 56,016/- is lying unpaid since years and was claimed in a every bills and the case is not maintainable as barred by limitation as the amount claimed by the O.Ps since 2004. As there was no deficiency in service they prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. .
We have heard both the learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition, the version of the Opposite parties and the documents filed by the Complainants in support of their case. No body was interested to adduce any evidence in shape of affidavits. However, it is admitted by the Opposite party that they are claiming the outstanding amount of Rs. 56,016/- from the Complainant since last 2004. In the mean time more then ten years has already been passed but the Opposite parties have not taken any effective steps to recover the same. The opposite party had also not taken any steps to clarify regarding the objection given by the then branch Manger of the bank on 01-09-2004. Apart from this it reveals from the letter dated. 26-08-2004 vide no. 3558 of the Opposite party No.1 that an amount of Rs. 20,059.10 was outstanding against the consumer no. 1003/C-23 and C-24 but the Consumer number given in the notice dated. 19-03-2014 by opposite party No.1 is different from the numbers given in the letter dated 26-08-2004. The Opposite parties have not filed any document regarding the details of the outstanding amount and also regarding the correct Consumer Number against whom the outstanding amount is pending since 2004. As the notice was issued by the O.Ps on 19-03-2014 and this case was filed by the Complainant on 20-03-2014, the question of barred by limitation as alleged does not arise.
-3-
The controversy regarding the outstanding amount between both the parties was not clear and specific as far as the notice dated 09-03-2014 of the Opp. Party is concerned. Hence, in our considered opinion the claim of outstanding amount of Rs. 56,016/- by the Opposite parties is not sustainable after more than ten years in the principle of natural justice. Hence, we allow the complaint and the Opposite parties are directed to waive out the said dues of Rs.56,016/- pending against the Complainant .The Opposite parties are only authorized to collect the monthly electric charges in connection with the Consumer No. 292101180003 standing in the name of the Complainant No.1 in which Boudh cooperative Bank is running.
In the above circumstances we are not awarding any compensation in favour of the Complainants. The interim order passed by this Forum on 28-03-2014 is here by vacated.
The C.C is disposed of accordingly. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
