Smt. SUSMITA MISHRA, PRESIDENT :-
1). The Complainant namely Satrughana Panda has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P’s on 15.07.2019
2). The facts relevant for the present dispute as per the Complaint petition in brief are that the Complainant with his family members permanently residing at village of Kalindrabad, P.O: Khairabad, P.S: Jajpur Sadar, Dist: Jajpur. In the Complaint petition, the Complainant is stating that one Electric Pole was standing over the premises of the household land/plot (Gharabari resident) of the Complainant by the Department of the above said O.P’s since last ten years. The Complainant also stated that in the later period, now he wants to build the new house/building in the same premises due to expansion of his family members. The Complainant is further stated that, he had requested to the O.P’s through applications in several times for removal of the above said electric Pole elsewhere for the above said purpose. It is also stated by the Complainant that O.P’s were demanded to deposit the required money for the removal/ shifting of electric pole form the Premises of the household Land/plot (Gharabari resident) of the Complainant.
It is also stated by the Complainant that the O.P’s were threatened to the Complainant to deposit money for removal of the electric pole and further it is stated by the complainant that frequently there. is drop of fire due to sparking on the electric line from that pole which is causes fear and dangerous to life of the Complainant as well as his family. So the Complainant had faced many difficulties / Problems for that reason. Hence, the Complainant filed the present case with the prayer to direct the O.P’s to remove/shift the electric pole elsewhere from the household land/plot (Gharabari resident) of the Complainant.
3). Notice was issued to the O.P’s by this Commission vide Memo No: 382,383 and 384 /CF, Jajpur on dated:18.07.2019 and after receipt of the notice, the O.P’s were filed written version jointly through their learned Counsel on dated: 01.10.2019.
4). The O.P’s resisted the complaint on the ground that : -
i). The Complaint under Act was not maintainable as he was not a “Consumer”
ii). Have Kept quiet for over ten years the Complaint was barred by limitation , and
iii). There is no cause of action.
It is also stated by the O.P’s that the Complainant has never applied to the O.P’s for removal of the electric pole. Further it is stated by the O.Ps that the Complainant has neither applied for shifting of the electric pole nor given any way of shifting of the pole. It is denied by the O.P’s that the Complainant is not facing any problem due to exiting of the Pole. There is no drop of fire from sparking on the pole and the pole is not in danger stage. O.P’s never threatened to the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service from the side of this O.P’s. Hence the claim of the Complainant is to be disallowed with costs.
5). The Complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of the Money Receipt bearing Consumer No “6121-1207-0321, dated 14.07.2019 (NESCO UTILITY), copy of the Electric Bill for the month of June,2019 dated: 08.07.2019 ; and copy of Aadhaar Card of the Complainant bearing No: 7170-2748-8431. On the other hand, the O.P’s have not submitted any documents before this Commission.
6). As per the record, on 28.04.2023 when the matter was listed for hearing none was present on behalf of the Complainant as well as of the O.P’s. So also gone through the entire order sheets of the case record it reveals that since long both the parties had not taken any steps nor appeared before this commission to participate in the hearing. As per the provision of the Act, we heard and this Commission may decide the Complaint on merit. Thus the present Complaint petition is decide on merit by this Commission.
7). Heard and perused the record along with documents filed by the Complainant and the following issues are framed: -
- Whether the Complainant is a “Consumer” within the Proview of the C.P Act ?.
- Whether the cause of action exists or not ? .
- Whether the Consumer Complaint has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation ?.
- Whether the O.P’s committed any deficiency in service and if so as to what relief ?.
ISSUE NO.1
As per the record it is reveals that the Complainant had deposited on electric bill for the month of June, 2019 from the above O.P’s on dated 08.07.2019 bearing Consumer No: 612112070321 and another slip of the Money Receipt of amounting Rs 652/- from NESCO UTILITY bearing above said Consumer No, vide Receipt No: 1114AFBGI 201461 on dated 14.07.2019 (Xerox copy attach)
It is also admitted by the O.Ps in Para-5 of the written Version that:-
“ the petitioner is availing power supply (p/s) from the
Pole existing inside his house site premises.”
Thus, the Complainant will fall within the definition of “Consumer” u/sec. 2 (d) of the C.P Act, 1986/ u/sec,2(7) of the C.P Act, 2019. On the other hand, that the Complainant is a “Consumer” u/sec, 2(o) of the Act, 1986/ u/sec, 2(42) of the C.P Act, 2019, where the O.P’s rendered services to the Complainant relating to the “Electricity”.
The issue is answered in favour of the Complainant.
ISSUE No: 2 and 3
On careful perusal of the record it appears to us that in support of the case of the Complainant has nowhere stated in the petition of the Consumer Complaint about any fact and / or facts with regard to the Continuation of cause of action with dates and the Complainant has not filed any papers and/ or documents to show that the cause of action lastly arose since last ten years of existing of the electric pole and thereafter is continuing day to day.
Here, we are reproduced some lines about the cause of action- “As cause of action is bundle of facts, the fact that has given raise to action against other party is called the cause of action. Basing on the date of occurrence of the particular fact which gives a right to the Complainant to the other party, the point of limitation is completed. Thus points of jurisdiction and limitation arise from the cause of action. Several facts which are necessary constituents of a cause of action may not occur at one and the same time and in such an event complete cause of action can arise only when the last of such facts occurs”.
In the instant case, as there was no valid written application nor any valid legal notice to the O.P’s sent by the Complainant with regard to removal of the existing electric pole from his premises in question. We hold that the complaint is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed due to lacks of cause of action and limitation.
Accordingly, the answer of the issues No: 2 & 3 against the Complainant.
ISSUE NO: 4
As per the written version of the O.P’s, it is admitted by the O.Ps in Para-5 that:-
“The petitioner is availing power supply (p/s) from the pole existing inside his house site premises. By the time of Power Supply (p/s) he has impliedly permitted the O.Ps for errection of pole. The petitioner is a Consumer under the O.P (No. JTR 6393) since long and is availing power supply to his house since then from the said pole.
As per O.E.R.C code the petitioner if apply for removal of that pole then he is to bear all cost of the removal of the pole & also indicate place of shifting.”
In this regard, we are of the opinion that, the provision of O.E.R.C (conditions of supply) code, 2019 has been reproduced here:-
“While shifting / errection or relocation of existing infrastructure, deduction of salvage value of 8 % of the original cost of such infrastructure is to be considered in the estimate”.
In the present case, to shift the electric pole in the premises of the household plot/land, the complainant should give written notice or an electric pole shifting application to the relevant Electricity Board in order to move an electrical pole that is blocking the Complainants construction of building as per requirement of his family. After that, the O.P’s will conduct a survey, they can also request payment for the relocation of the pole to the complainant.
From the supra discussion, conclusion is drawn that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. As the O.Ps are not deficient in their service to the Complainant, accordingly the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence the Order.
O R D E R.
The present C.C Case is of civil nature and this commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same, but however, the complainant is at liberty to approach before civil court for due redressal of his grievance.
In the result, consumer Complaint case bearing C.C No: 62/2019 hereby dismissed on the ground of limitation arising out of having no cause of action and on the ground that there was no valid written application and no legal notice. The C.C case is accordingly disposed off.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance
Order pronounced in the open Commission on this the 26th day of May, 2023
