Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/85/2016

Sri Rudra Narayana Lenka - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer (Electl.) DED, CESU and others - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL

                                            C.C.Case No.85 of 2016

Sri Rudranarayan Lenka, aged about 49 years

S/o Rabinarayan Lenka, At: Kunjakanta,( North Madhuban),

PO/PS: Dhenkanal Town, Dist: Dhenkanal                            ….............Complainant

                                                                Versus

1) CENTRAL ELECTLRICITY SUPPLY UTILITY OF ODISHA

     Represented through its Executive Engineer, DED,CESU,

     Dhenkanal, At: Anand Nagar, PO/PS: Dhenkanal Town,

     Dhenkanal

2) Divisional Head, Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Dhenkanal,

     At: Anand Nagar, PO/PS: Dhenkanal Town, Dist: Dhenkanal

3) Junior Engineer, Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd,

     Dhenkanal Division, At/Po/PS: Dhenkanal Town,

     Dist: Dhenkanal                                                                   …..........Opp. Parties

Present:   Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,

                  Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member

Counsel: For the complainant: Naba Kishore Guru & Associates

                  For the Opp. Party No.1: Asit Kumar Sahoo, Auth.Agent

                  For the Opp. Party No.2 & 3 Sibasai Mohapatra & Associates

Date of hearing argument:  3.10.2017

Date of order: 11.10.2017

                                                                                JUDGMENT

Sri Purna Ch. Mishra, Member

                 The complainant has filed this petition U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opp. Parties and praying therein for a direction to the O.Ps for restoration of power supply to Consumer No. 4608708 and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

                1) The brief fact of the complainant’s case is that he is a consumer under domestic category under the O.P.No.1 and his connected load is 1.5 K.W.  He has availed power supply from the O.P.No.1 and has been paying the dues from time to time and there is no outstanding   energy charges against him.  On 18.11.2016 some employees of O.P.No.2 & 3 identifying themselves to be the employees of Enzen Company entered into the house and disconnected power supply without prior notice.  Inspite of repeated approaches power supply was not restored for which he has filed this petition for Redressal of his grievance as prayed for.

                2) After receipt of notice from this Forum the O.P.No.1 appeared through his authorized representative and O.P.No.2 & 3 appeared through their Advocate.  The O.P.No.1 preferred not to file any written version and the O.P.No.2 & 3 filed their written version jointly. The O.P.No.2 & 3 in the written version have stated that the case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to file the present case.  It is specifically pleaded that there was no order of disconnection of power supply to the premises of the complainant by the O.Ps.   Visiting the house of the complainant and disconnection of    power supply is squarely denied by the Opp. Parties No.2 & 3  Disconnection of power supply to the premises of the complainant was never carried out by the Opp. Parties. No.2 & 3   The power disruption to the complainant’s premises might have occurred due to several technical grounds for which the O.P No.2 & 3 do not hold any responsibility.  There is no deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly, it is pleaded to dismiss the complaint against them. .

                3) The petitioner in support of his case has filed energy bills issued by the O.P.No.1, money receipt showing payment of energy charges, treatment record of his wife, copy of the press release dated 25.1.2013 issued by Information and Public Relation Dept., Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar,  copy of settlement dated 31.1.2013 signed by the CESU authorities and District Administration and copy of the practicing certificate issued by District Judge, Dhenkaal and Advocate License issued  by the State Bar Counsel, Odisha Cuttack.  The petitioner has also filed an affidavit in support of his case.  The O.P.No.2 & 3 even though have filed their written version no document has been filed by them in support of their case nor   has any counter affidavit been filed by the O.P.No.2 & 3.  The O.P.No.1 has not filed any documents even though participated in the hearing. 

4)            The pertinent question relating to this case is whether there was any justification on the part of the O.Ps to disconnect power supply to the premises of the petitioner on 18.11.2016?  It is seen from the documents on record that the energy bill for the month of November-2016 was issued to the complainant on 15.11.2016 and a sum of Rs. 174.37 was claimed as energy bill for that month.  It is also seen from the documents that the petitioner has paid the energy charges on 16.11.2016 vide receipt No. 015869 dated 16.11.2016.  It is seen from the receipt that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 25.63 in excess of the bill for the month of November-2016.  The O.P.No.1 during course of hearing could not put forth any reason regarding the disconnection of power supply to the premises of the petitioner. So also the written statement of the O.P.No.2 & 3 does not speak any reason regarding disconnection of power supply to the premises of the petitioner.  Rather they deny any such action on their part.  Neither the O.P.No.1 nor the O.P.No.2 & 3 have not advanced any reason why power supply was disconnected to the premises of the petitioner on 18.11.2016.  The petitioner in his affidavit has clearly mentioned that without giving any intimation and without any reasonable ground suddenly power supply was disconnected on 18.11.2016 at 12 noon by some employees of O.P.No.2 & 3.  The O.P.No.2 and 3 have not filed any counter affidavit to state that they have not disconnected power supply to the premises of the petitioner.  In the absence of any counter affidavit or rebuttal evidence to that effect the evidence led by the petitioner in his affidavit stands uncontroverted.  So it is very clear that power supply was disconnected to the house of the petitioner on 18.11.2016.    Since power supply was disconnected without prior notice and without any just and genuine reason, it amounts to deficiency of service.   

5)        Now come to the question who is responsible for such illegal act of disconnection of power supply.  It is seen from the documents available on record that O.P.No.2 & 3 have been debarred from functioning in Dhenkanal and Angul District keeping in view the mass discontentment and Govt has directed CESU to take meter reading, billing collection and maintenance of consumer services in both the district.  So also another document has been filed by the petitioner which relates to the proceeding of a meeting dated 31.1.2013 in  “Sadbhabana Gruha”  held among the District Administration, CESU and the Action committee members.  In this proceeding it has been clearly mentioned that the status of CESU prior to the agreement with Enzen will be maintained.  This document has been signed by the Collector, Dhenkanal, Supdt. Of Police, Dhenkanal, Superintending Engineer, Dhenkanal, Executive Engineer, CESU, Dhenkanal and by the members of the action committee.  It is crystal clear from both the documents that the O.P.No.2 & 3 are non-entities so far as supply and distribution of electricity to the Consumers are concerned.  So the O.P No.2 & 3 being non-entities have no role to play in this case.  It is specifically pleaded in para-13 of the complaint petition that the O.P.No.2 & 3 have no locus standi to disconnect electricity  in view of the press release dated 25.1.2013 of the Govt. of Odisha and the settlement dated 30.1.2013 amongst the District Administration, CESU and the Action Committee. The O.P.No.2 & 3 does not deny this aspect in their written statement.  It is strange as to how could they enter into the premises of the petitioner to disconnect power supply on 18.11.2016.  The O.P.No.1 have received the interim order to restore power supply on 21.12.2016 alongwith the copy of the C.C.Case No.85/2016.  Since the O.P.No.1 did not file written version his role with regard to the conduct of the O.P.No.2 & 3 remains clumsy.  So the entire responsibility of disconnection of power supplylies on O.P.No.1.  The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that power supply was restored to his house after    20 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Forum. So the petitioner remained in darkness from 18.11.2016 to 9.1.2017 without any fault of him.  Section 56 of the Electricity Act 2003 clearly states that 15 days clear notice is to be   issued to a consumer in the event of his failure to pay the energy charges for disconnection of power supply.  In the instant case energy charges has been paid in excess to the O.P and the O.Ps could not put forth any reason for disconnection of power supply to the premises of the petitioner and restoration thereof after a long gap of one month and 20 days.  This is a serious matter and it appears that the O.P.No.1 has acted in a very illegal, careless and arbitrary manner violating the principles of natural justice and therefore is squarely liable for causing deficiency in service to the petitioner as the O.P No. 2 & 3 are non-entities so far as supply and distribution of electricity to the petitioner’s house is concerned. .

6)            Now comes the question of harassment, mental agony caused to the petitioner.  The petitioner has pleaded that his wife is suffering from brain cyst and under the treatment of Prof. B.K. Kuanar.   In order to support his pleading he has filed his affidavit along with the original treatment certificate of his wife.  Besides, he has also filed   a copy of Advocate License and the certificate issued by the Hon’ble District Judge, Dhenkanal to show that he is a practicing Advocate.  The documents   and the affidavit clearly goes to show that his wife has suffered without power supply and his profession has been affected due to want of power supply.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Purusottam Behl Vrs. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited reported in 2013 (II) CPR page 245 has held that disconnection of power supply without any reason is a serious matter and in that case the Hon’ble National Commission has allowed fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for the harassment caused to the petitioner.  As the petitioner has suffered in the hands of the O.P.No.1 he is entitled for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him.  So we come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.No.1 and he is liable to be penalized for causing deficiency of service and harassment to the petitioner.

7)            Before concluding the case it is seen from the documents and the affidavit filed in this case that the O.P.No.2 & 3 have entered into the premises of the petitioner on 18.11.2016 and disconnected power supply and subsequently restored power supply.  The O.P.No.1 should have immediately initiated legal action against the O.P.No.2 & 3 for unauthorizedly  entering into the premises of the complainant and disconnecting power supply.     Because of silence of the O.P.No.1 everything remained in darkness. Whether the O.P.No.1 has initiated any action or not against the O.P.No.2 & 3 after knowing about their unauthorized action is unknown.

              Since the O.P.No.1 has been held responsible for deficiency of service and causing harassment to the petitioner, hence the order.

                                                                                     ORDER

                The complaint petition is allowed on contest against O.P.No.1 and dismissed against O.P.No.2 & 3.  The O.P.No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only   to the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only     towards cost of the litigation within 30 days of receipt of this order.  The O.P.No.1 is further directed to  cause an enquiry into the circumstances under which the O.P.No.2 & 3 entered into the premises of the petitioner and disconnected power supply   without any  authority and initiate necessary legal action prescribed under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the O.E.R.C (Conditions of Supply and Distribution ) Code, 2004 and intimated the petitioner regarding the action taken by him against the O.P.No.2 & 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The amount of cost and compensation as directed is to be paid to the petitioner by CESU first and the O.P.No.1 is directed to cause an enquiry and spot out the person(s) responsible for such illegal act and recover it from them as per the parameter fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balbir Singh vrs. B.D.A reported in 2004 Vol-II page 88.

 

                (Badal Bihari Pattanaik)                                              ( Purna Ch. Mishra)

                                President                                                                 Member