Orissa

Cuttak

CC/56/2022

Rajani Ch Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

TPCODL - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.56/2022

.           Rajani Chandra Mohanty,

S/o:Late Rabindra Nath Mohanty,

Resident of Gurujang Diwan Sahai,

P.O:Gurujang,P.S/Dist:Khorda,

At present Jhanjirimangala,Mishra Lane,

P.O:Teledngabvazar,P.S:Purighat,Cuttack.                                   ... Complainant.

         

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Executive Engineer(Electrical),

TPCODL,CDD-I,Ranihat,Cuttack-753002.

 

2.       SDO 4,Chandinichouk, TPCODL,CDD-I,SBM,Section,Chandinichowk,

             Cuttack-753002.

 

3.        Junior Engineer,Chandinichowk,

TPCODL,CDD-I SBM,Section,Chandinichowk,

              Cuttack-753002.                                                                                  ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    31.03.2022

Date of Order:  22.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. R.C.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :            Self.

          

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,President.                               

            The complainant’s case in short is that he had purchased a house at Stoney Road,Dagarpada,Cuttack,  which was recorded in the name of one Sri Chandrasekhar Sahoo.  The electricity supply was provided to the said house in the name of said Chandrasekhar Sahoo vide his old electricity consumer no. was 04-031/000 and the new consumer number is 0018/1374.  It is also averred by the complainant that he was paying energy bill without any delay in the name of the said Chandrasekhar Sahoo.  It is further averred by the complainant that in the year 2009-10 there was a survey by the officials of the O.Ps and  thereafter they had introduced a scheme for clearance of the outstanding dues by way of “One Time Settlement” in short ‘OTS’.  The complainant paid arrear electricity bill by way of OTS as per the instructions of the O.Ps and there was no outstanding dues against him.   Accordingly, the O.Ps had issued bill for later period showing no outstanding dues.  But, subsequently, the O.Ps issued bill showing the outstanding arrear dues, for which the complainant had protested.  However, the complainant was paying current energy bill.  The O.Ps had not accepted the energy dues of December,2019 and January,2020 amounting to Rs.1468/- on the allegation that there was outstanding dues and that unless the complainant clears the said dues, the monthly energy dues would not be accepted by them.  The complainant objected to such billing of the O.Ps, as there was no outstanding arrear dues against him.  The complainant had sent a notice on 15.1.2020 to the O.Ps in this regard.  Thereafter, the O.Ps were receiving the current energy bill without any objection.   The complainant thereafter was paying the electricity dues regularly till February,2022.  Again, the O.Ps stopped receiving current energy bill in the month of March,2022, on the allegation that arrear dues of Rs.10,509/- was not cleared by the complainant.  The complainant thus had again objected to such action of the O.Ps.  But the O.Ps without taking into consideration the objection of the complainant had sent a disconnection notice to the house of the complainant in the month of March,2022, but strangely that notice carries the date to be of dt.6.5.2022.  It is further case of the complainant that the O.Ps did not take any action after his repeated approaches since from the year 2009 for waiving the fake arrear bills, so also did not change the ownership of energy meter in his name.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for issuance of direction to the O.Ps to change the ownership of energy meter to his name, to provide statement of accounts from the year 2005 till date as well as not to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant.  The complainant has also prayed for issuance of direction to the O.Ps to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the violation of consumer rights as well as another sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the litigation cost as incurred by him.

            The complainant in support of his case has filed Xerox copies of some documents and the original disconnection notice.

2.         The O.Ps have jointly contested this case and have filed their written version.  It is averred by the O.Ps that the complainant is a domestic consumer having 3.5 kw load.  According to the O.Ps, the actual bill amount of the complainant upto 12/2008 was Rs.15,686.62p as well as actual bill amount upto 8/2009 was Rs.22,574.10p.  It is further averred by them that the eligible amount for OTS was for the bill amount up to 12/2008 i.e., Rs.15,686.62p and as per the OTS scheme, the complainant was entitled to discount of 42%, which is calculated as Rs.4588.54p.  As per the contention of the O.Ps, the complainant should have paid a sum of Rs.17,986/- for settlement of the  arrear dues.  But he had paid only a sum of Rs.11,400/- on 28.8.2009 but Rs.11,211.62 was wrongly credited in his account against OTS rebate.  As the complainant did not clear the dues as per OTS, the rebate amount was debited.  It is averred by the O.Ps that in view of the above circumstances, this Commission may pass appropriate order as deemed fit.

            The O.Ps have filed xerox copies of certain documents in support of their case including xerox copy of the Consumer Billing Ledger.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments of the complaint petition and the contents of the written version, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case as filed by the complainant.

            iii.        Whether the O.Ps were deficient in their service towards the complainant?

            iv.        Whether the O.Ps had adopted unfair trade practice?

            v.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.i & ii.

            The O.Ps have not taken any stand as regards to maintainability of the complaint petition before this Commission but in their written notes of submission they have alleged that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the case of the complainant as there is provision to approach Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under Chapter-II-O.E.R.C Code-2004.  Admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.  As per the C.P.Act,2019, the facility has been provided in the said Act and the complainant is at liberty to prefer complaint case before this Commission or to approach Grievance Redressal Forum.  Thus, the complainant has rightly exercised his option by filing the complaint case before this Commission and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case of the complainant.  Accordingly, these two issues are answered.

Issues No.iii & iv.

            It is admitted by the O.Ps that they had launched the Scheme for OTS in the year 2009 towards clearance of outstanding energy dues.  The complainant had availed that opportunity and had paid a sum of Rs.11,400/- on 28.8.2009 towards the arrear dues of Rs.22,574/- as per the bill dt.8/2009.  The O.Ps had waived out Rs.11,211.62p from the arrear dues and thus there was no outstanding dues of the complainant in the month of August,2009.  The O.Ps have filed consumer Billing ledger before this Commission.  The said ledger when perused, it reveals that the outstanding dues of the complainant for the month of 8/2009 was minus Rs.64.02 and so also in the month of 9/2009, it was minus Rs.0.45.  But later on, the O.Ps had calculated the eligible amount for rebate as Rs.4588.54p.  But the O.Ps in their written notes of submission have stated that eligible amount for rebate is Rs.6588.38p.  The complainant as per the scheme and instruction of the O.Ps had paid the required dues of Rs.11,400/- on 28.8.2009 and thus  there was no outstanding dues against him by that date.   It is noticed that the O.Ps are taking different plea on different occasions.   They have not filed any document to justify their stand that the complainant is not entitled to the rebate of Rs.11,211.62 instead, is only entitled for a rebate of  Rs.4,588.54p.    Be that as it may, the O.Ps had introduced the OTS scheme in the year 2009 and as per the scheme the complainant had paid Rs.11,400/- on 28.8.2009 and the O.Ps had also accepted that amount. Moreso, the ledger of O.Ps reveals that there was no outstanding dues against the complainant.  However, after two months, in the bill of October,2009 the O.Ps had  again added  the arrear dues of Rs.11,211.62p. The O.Ps having settled the dues, are estopped to debit such amount later.  The O.Ps in order to escape from their liability have taken a concocted and vague plea which is not sustainable in the eye of law.  This attitude of the O.Ps clearly reveals that they have adopted unfair trade practice.  The O.Ps are not accepting the bill amount of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has not cleared the outstanding arrear dues when there is no outstanding dues against him.  By this process the complainant is deprived of getting rebate amount on payment of monthly current dues.  The O.Ps are also is not changing the ownership of the meter in the name of the complainant since 2009.  The O.Ps also have served disconnection notice on the ground that the complainant has not cleared the outstanding dues, which is only to harass the complainant.  Hence, the O.Ps have undoubtedly committed deficiency in their service and thus  have adopted unfair trade practice.

 

 

Issue No.v.

            In view of the above discussions, it is held that there is no outstanding energy dues of the complainant since August,,2009.  The O.Ps are harassing the complainant since 2009 by not changing ownership of energy meter in the name of the complainant and are rather threatening for disconnection of power supply on the vague ground of outstanding arrear dues, which is a non-existing claim.  As the O.Ps have committed deficiency of service and has adopted unfair trade practice, they are liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  As such, this Commission is of a view to direct the O.Ps to change the ownership of the energy meter in the name of the complainant against the name of Chandrasekhar Sahoo.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the compensation to the complainant towards his mental agony along with a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the litigation cost as incurred by him.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 22^nd day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member                                                                                                                                                              

 

                                                                                                                                     Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President