Posts Tagged ‘Daspalla’

Subash Chandra Mishra v Elect. Sub-Division , Daspalla

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NAYAGARH .

C.C. Case  No.  03  of   2009

30th    June ,  2009 .

BEFORE :

Sri  P. K.  Pattanaik ,  President ,

Sri   P. K. Mishra,   Member

AND

Smt.  Binodini  Devi ,  Member .

Name  of  the  Parties .

Sri Subash Chandra Mishra, aged about 54 years

Son of Late Rama Chandra Mishra

Vill:- Kunjabangarh (Gopinath sahi)

PO/PS Daspalla  Dist. Nayagarh.

———————- Complainant  .                                                              -Vrs-

1.   The A.M.C/S.D.O.(Elect .)

Elect. Sub-Division , Daspalla

AT/PO/PS:  Daspalla    Dist. Nayagarh.

2.   The A.G.M/Executive En gineer(Elect.)

N.E.D. Nayagarh  AT/PO/PS/ Dist. Nayagarh.

3.   The G.M./Superintending Engineer(Elect.)

Electrical Circle No.I I Bhubaneswar

Plot No.95/96, Baramunda, Bhubaneswar

Dist. Khurda.

—————- Opp . Parties .

Counsel for the complainant :               -  Sri Arjuna Sahoo, ( Advocate )

Counsel for the O.Ps :                              -  Sri R.K. Sahoo,     ( Advocate )

Date of appearance of O.Ps :                                – 29-01-2009

Date of  hearing :                                                     -  04-06-2009

Date of  Judgment :                                                – 30-06-2009

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

P. K.  Pattanaik , President :-

Deficiency in service on the part of the O. Ps  is  the grievance of  the complainant .

The  complainant’s  case  in  brief  is  as  follows : -

The  Consumer No. D-13-C-30 and  A/C No. 031409250

stands in the name of the complainant’s deceased father.  After the death of his father he has been using electricity vide the said consumer number.  A China meter was installed in his house on 30.11.2002 but the O.Ps whimsically showed the status of the meter as defective . But from January 2005 the O.Ps issued bills in which the meter status was shown as O.K. and the owner of the meter is CESCO.  This practice continued  upto March, 2008.  Again from December 2008, the owner of the meter was shown as the consumer.  As per the allegation of the complainant, the O.Ps have been issuing wrong bills to the complainant since January,1987.  The complainant had complained before the O.ps about the wrong billing. But the O.Ps excepting O.P.No.3 remained silent  . The O.P.No.3 had gone through the complainant petition dt. 6.12.2006 of the complainant and issued order vide letter No.289 dt. 15.1.07 to  O.P.No.1with memo No.290 dt. 15.1.07 to O.P.No.2.  The complainant again approached the O.Ps on 5.11.08 and submitted complainant petition  but the O.Ps did not take any action. According to the  complainant the O.ps have been providing wrong bills since January, 1987 to December, 2008 .  After installation of the meter on 30.11.2002, the O.ps are                                                        providing bills on load factor basis and the average basis billing from December,  2002  to December, 2004 is illegal.  The bills which  were issued on meter reading basis does not show the previous reading and present reading.  As regards the arrear amount, the bill does not show the period that is from which date to which date the arrear amount is there .  The bills also do not reflect the  security deposit amount and the interest there on.

As per the complainant, the O.ps have not  performed their

duty in the manner in which they are expected to do so and as such the O.Ps are guilty of  deficiency in service for which the complainant has undergone harassment and mental agony.

According to the complainant the cause of action  arose on 6.12.2006, 15.1.2007 and 5.11.2008.

The complainant has approached this Forum with a payer to direct the O.Ps to correct the wrong bills from January, 1987 to December, 2009,  to correct the load factor  as per actual consumption,  to calculate the deposited amount and to adjust the excess payment amount,  to pay him Rs.40,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation  expenses.

The complainant petition is supported by affidavit. The complainant has also filed xerox copies  of some document which are marked as Annexure-1 to Annexure-8

The O.Ps have filed written version in which it has been averred that the case is not maintainable.  The O.Ps have averred that the statements contained in the complainant petition are partly correct.  The complainant has not filed any document before the O.Ps to revise and correct the arrear dues till date.  If the complainant will submit the relevant documents, then the O.Ps will try to revise and correct the arrear bill.  As per the version of the O.Ps there is no deficiency on their part in providing  service to the complainant and as such the case against them needs to be dismissed with cost.

The written version of the O. Ps is supported by affidavit.

On the pleadings of the parties , we take up the issue

of deficiency in service for adjudication .

F  I   N   D  I  N  G  S

Section (2) (1) (g) of the C.P ACT defines  “Deficiency” as under :-

“Deficiency means any fault,imperfection,shortcoming or inadequacy

in the quality,nature and manner of performance which is required to be

maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been

undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or

otherwise in relation to any service  ”.

The allegation of the complainant is that the O.ps have been issuing wrong bills regularly and inspite of his complaint about these wrong billing the O.ps have remained silent.  He has lodged written complaint about this wrong billing by the O.ps but the O.Ps have taken no steps till date to revise and correct the wrong bills.

Annexure-1  to  Annexure-8 are filed by the  complainant .

Annexure -1 relates to letter  by the complainant to O.P.No.1

Annexure-2 also relates to the letter  by the complainant to O.P.

No.1 in the matter of his grievances.

Annexure-3 relates to the test report of meter .

Annexure-4 to Annexure-6 relate to the electricity bills for different periods.

Annexure-7 relates to the letter by the complainant to O.P.No.2.

Annexure-8 reletes to the letter by the complainant to O.P.No.3.

The O.ps have averred in their written version that  the statements  made in the complaint petition are partly correct.  The O.ps have not mentioned as to which part of the complaint petition is correct and which part is not correct .  They have not denied that the complainant has  approached  them for the revision and correction of the arrear bill.

In the light of the aforesaid analysis we are of the opinion that the O.Ps have not taken any action for the correction and revision of the disputed bill  for which we hold that  the O.Ps are guilty of deficiency in service.

Hence  it  is  ordered   .

O R D E R

The  complainant’s  case  is  partly allowed on contest against the O. Ps.  The  O. Ps are directed to correct and revise the arrear bill of the complainant and to provide a revised bill to the complainant . The complainant is also directed to provide the relevant documents to the O. Ps for the said correction and revision of the arrear bill.  The O. Ps shall carry out this order within two months  from the date of communication of this order.  No order as to cost.

Sri  P. K. Pattanaik

President .

Sri  Pravakar  Mishra                               Smt. Binodini  Devi

Member                                                   Member