Orissa

Bhadrak

CC/37/2023

Sri Manibhadra Sahoo, aged about 80 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Bhadrak North Electrical Division, TPNODL - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BHADRAK
 
Complaint Case No. CC/37/2023
( Date of Filing : 24 Feb 2023 )
 
1. Sri Manibhadra Sahoo, aged about 80 years
S/o:-Late Bhagaban Sahoo, At/Po- Naya Bazar, Ps:-Bhadrak (T), Dist- Bhadrak- 756100
Bhadrak
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Bhadrak North Electrical Division, TPNODL
At:- By-pass, Po/PS/Dist:- Bhadrak (Town)-756100.
Bhadrak
Odisha
2. The S.D.O., Sub-Division No. 1, Bhadrak North Electrical Division, TPNODL
At:- By-pass, Po/PS/Dist:- Bhadrak (Town)-756100.
Bhadrak
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. MADHUSMITA SWAIN MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 21 Nov 2023
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2023. 

                                                                                                                                         Date of hearing     :   03.10.2023.

Date of order                 :   21.11.2023.

Dated the 21st day of November 2023.

           Sri Manibhadra Sahoo, S/o:-Late Bhagaban Sahoo,

                   At/Po:-Naya Bazar, P.S:- Bhadrak (T), Dist:- Bhadrak-756100,

                   Mob.No.-9238686502 & 9776050333.  

                                                                                      …………..  Complainant.

                             -:Versus:-

1.   The Executive Engineer,

      At:- By-pass, Po/PS/Dist:- Bhadrak (Town)-756100.

           2.  The S.D.O., Sub-Division No.1,

                Bhadrak North Electrical Division, TPNODL,

      At:- By-pass, Po/PS/Dist:- Bhadrak (Town)-756100.

        .…………Opposite parties.

P R E S E N T S.

             1.  Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,

          2.  Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.

                   Counsels appeared for the parties.

For the Complainant :  In person.

                                                   For the Opp. Party             :  Sri D.N. Naik, Dy. Manager (Legal).

 

                                                J U D G M E N T.

SMT. MADHUSMITA SWAIN, MEMBER.

          In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Fact of the case is that, the complainant is a domestic consumer under the O.Ps bearing consumer No.-BX-109736 with corresponding new Account No.421101030378. The O.P. i.e. (TPNODL) issued the electric bill & the complainant paid it regularly.  On 12.12.2022 the O.Ps issued bill for the month of November 2022 in which an amount of Rs.7,714/- reflected as sundry charges for which complainant approached to the O.P.No.2 for correction of his electric bill and they assure him to correct the bill.  But on 13.01.2023 the O.Ps issued electric bill for the month of January 2023 and again an amount of Rs.7,724/- reflected on the electric bill.  Hence this complaint.

The O.Ps in their written version stated that the bills were served to the consumer an average basis since March 2021 to February 2022 a new meter was installed in the premises of consumer by replacing the old meter No.-91214.  After installation of new meter the average consumption of six months comes around 230 units per months as per regulation 155 of OERC Distribution Code 2019, the bill served on load factor basis is to be recast on the basis of average consumption of six months after installation of new meter. In this case the average consumption is higher than units billed on loan factor basis.  Accordingly adjustment of Rs.7201.46 has been levied on the bill of consumer.

It is very much within the knowledge of the OP that they have to install a new meter in the premises of the complainant since March 2021. These OPs  slept over the matter for reasons known to them in violation of the OERC Distribution Code. They should have replaced the defective meter within 30 days. The inordinate delay in installing a new meter and upward revision of the bill, is not at all acceptable. They have to face the consequence of their own lapse. They cannot charge the complainant for their own lapse. Had the meter been installed in due time the complainant would have been aware about his uses and could have controlled that. This commission thus quashes the revised bill of Rs.7201.46 levied on the complainant taking 230 units per month as average.

O R D E R.

In the result, the complaint be & same is partially allowed. The revised bill taking average consumption which makes an arrear of Rs.7201.46 is quashed. The complainant is to pay the regular bills as per his consumption shown by the meter to get uninterrupted energy supply.

This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 21stday of November 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MADHUSMITA SWAIN]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Post your Complaint / Review.