Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA
Dr. D.P. Choudhury, President, Pramode Kumar Prusty, Member and Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik Member
Asst. Manager, CESU and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Basanta Kumar Das – Respondent
First Appeal No.A/252 of 2019
Decided on 17.6.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15[ – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Services – Electricity – Disconnection – before due date – Deceptive practice adopted – Act in violation of Fundamental Right under Art 21 of Constitution of India - Appeal Against order of District Commission – Disconnection – Advised – not be done on Sunday - When the OPs adopted deceptive practice by disconnecting the electricity line of the complainant before due date of payment and also particularly on Sunday when the District Commission or the State Commission are closed, the complainant is entitled to seek redressal against such unfair trade practice. Therefore, the act of the OPs are not only violation of the fundamental right as per Article – 21 of the Constitution but also it is infringement of consumer rights as prescribed under clause (v) of section – 2(9) of the present Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In addition to this, it is reiterated to above fact, complainant has proved the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of OPs under the Act. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned District Forum cannot be said illegal or improper – Thus, the electric line being an essential ingredient of day to day life should be maintained without disruption and the consumers of electric energy should pay the charges so as to avail the same. If any dispute arises, it can be solved amicably or to go court or any Commission to decide as per law. When the consumer is liable to pay, the provision of law should be at least followed by OPs –licensee while ensuring minimum human right available to individual. Therefore, it is advisable to the concerned department of OPs not to disconnect the electric line on Sunday, a holiday so far senior citizen and infirm individual. In the instant case, complainant has proved by filing affidavit that he and his ailing wife who are senior citizens got harassment and mental agony due to disconnection of power supply on 26.3.2017 – On facts, appeal stands dismissed. The impugned order be complied by the OPs within 45 days from today. [Paras 13 to 15]
The rights of the consumers were introduced by John F.Kennedy former USA President in 1962 and the same has been adopted by the United Nation Assembly and in the present Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the consumer rights have been defined. The consumer rights have not been introduced in the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but the reason for introduction of consumer rights is reflection of good governance to promote the rights of individual. The said consumer rights which are introduced by the President of U.S.A. and also expanded by the United Nation Assembly have been well narrated in Section 2 (19) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Result: Compliant Allowed.
ORDER
Heard the respondent in person. None appears for the appellants.
2. This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The unfolded story of the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs vide consumer no. 02301614. It is alleged inter alia by the complainant that he was paying the electricity dues regularly. He was served the bill for the month of March on 22.3.2017 for Rs.867/- and the last date for payment of dues was fixed to 31.3.2017. But before the due date of payment i.e. on 26.3.2017 the OPs allegedly disconnected the electric line on 26.3.2017 (Sunday) without any prior notice to the complainant. Then the complainant had to approach the OPs but as per their demand the complainant deposited Rs.867/- with reconnection charges. Due to disconnection of electricity, the complainant stated to have suffered mental agony and harassment and his family members also suffered. So he filed the complaint.
4. OPs did not file written version. So, they were set ex parte.
5. Learned District Forum after hearing the complainant passed the following order:—
“xxx xxx xxx
The case is allowed exparte against the OPs. The OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost and to refund Rs.150/- collected towards disconnection charge within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Forum as per the provisions of CP Act.”
6. Respondent appeared in person submitted that he has approached the concerned Officer of OPs of that area to know the reason of disconnection of electricity to his residence but the OPs instead of restoring the line demanded reconnection charges and under their instruction, he deposited the reconnection charges. He submitted that he has already explained everything in his complaint petition. He got mental agony and harassment when electric line was disconnected without following due procedure of law. He further submitted that he and his wife being senior citizen suffered the heat during summer season when the electric line in Sunday was disconnected for which he filed the complaint before the learned District Forum. However, he fully agreed with the finding of the learned District Forum.
7. Considered the submission of the respondent who appears in person and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs. It is admitted fact that the complainant was paying Rs.867/- towards bill amount for the month of March, 2017 with reconnection charges.
9. The OPs when offered the opportunity to submit their case, they have not participated for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, the complainant’s version in the complaint that he has paid the reconnection charges as per the advice of the OPs cannot be denied.
10. No doubt the bill shows that the due date was 31.3.2017 for payment but the electric line was disconnected on 26.3.2017 which is prior to the due date of payment of the dues. Neither the electricity Act nor the Regulation thereof prescribed to disconnect the electric line before the due date for payment of the bill. Section 2(g) of the Act defined the “deficiency” in the following manner:—
“xxx xxx xxx
(g) “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 a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;”
11. “Service” as defined under Section – 2(o) of the Act includes supply of electrical or other energy. Thus, Sections – 2(g) and 2(o) read together spell out that any imperfection or
SupremeToday
1. Unfair trade practice - When the OPs adopted deceptive practice by disconnecting the electricity line of the complainant before due date of payment and also particularly on Sunday when the Distric....
National Commission does not act as Appellate Forum and cannot reappreciate evidence unless there is some jurisdictional error.
Commercial Purpose - The Ice manufacturing plant run by the Respondent with Electricity taken that the appellant company is not being used for domestic purpose it is being used for industrial purpose....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
