SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

Cause Title/Judgement-Entry
IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ODISHA, CUTTACK
 
First Appeal No. A/182/2010
( Date of Filing : 22 Mar 2010 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District )
 
1. S.D.O., Electrcals
Angul Electrcal Sub-Division, Central Supply Utility, Dist-Angul.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Dillip Kumar Prdhan
S/o- Sidheswar Pradhan, At- Maratira, Tubey, Dist- Angul.
2. Manger, Angul Electrical Division, CESU
At- Amalapada, Dist- Angul
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:M/s. B.K. Sharma & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1
 M/s. A.K. Nath & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1
Dated : 17 Nov 2022
Final Order / Judgement

                 Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant.            

               2. The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that the complainant is a consumer under the O.P. He used to pay the electric dues to the O.P with the meter rent. It is alleged inter- alia that on 23-09-2008 the MRT squard of O.P verified the meter and found the same has been tampered but the meter was OK. The O.P served one penal assement bill for Rs.60,294.00/- and served a notice to show cause .The O.P disconnected the electric line on 30-09-2008 without waiting for filing show casue by the complainant. Therefore the complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

     2. O.P filed wriiten version stataing that on Phyisical verification it is found that TP outer seal of the meter is absent and TP inner seals blue plastic distribution was tampered.So as per provison they assesed penal bill and there is no any deficiency in service on their part.

      3. After hearing of both parties Learen District Forum passed the following order: -

           “The Opp. Parties are directed to waive the plenal bill amounting to Rs. 60,294.00 and adjust Rs. 20,000.00 towards the monthly bill of the complainant. The case is allowed accordingly.”

4. Learend counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant was present during inspection and it was found that the meter has  been tampered and OK . Thereafter, as per OERC Code they have imposed penalty and issued notice to show cause . Learend District Forum without going to facts and law involved in this case passed impugned order which should be set aside  .He cited a decision of U.P power corporation- Vs.- Anis Ahmad.AIR 2013 Supreme court 2766.

      5. Considered the submission and perused the DFR and impugned order. We found that the  squard of O.P had visited  on 23-09-2008. After verification squard found that metering apparatous have been tampered. Accordingly, penal assessment bill was issued. In view of the judgement of UP Corporation Vs. Anis Ahmad (supra), we are in view that the  complaint is not maintainable as it is a matter  U/S 126 of Indian Electricity Act.. Therefore,the impugned order passed by Learend District Forumn is illegal and as such it is set aside and appeal is allowed. No cost.

          Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik]
MEMBER
 
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top