Orissa High Court
Gobinda Chandra Muduli vs State Of Odisha And Others .... ... on 4 April, 2023
Bench: Biswanath Rath, M.S.Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) NO.8079 OF 2019
Gobinda Chandra Muduli .... Petitioner
Mr.A.C.Behera,Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opp.Parties
Mr.S.Ghose,AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 04.04.2023
03. I.A. NO. 4336 of 2023
1. This is an application for replacement of the contesting Opp. Parties, for there is change in the position of such Opp. Parties.
2. Finding genuine request and the proposed parties should get the opportunity to have contest involving the dispute, this Court allows the application.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has already filed consolidated Cause Title which is already on record.
4. I.A. thus stands disposed of.
(Biswanath Rath) Judge (M.S.Sahoo) Judge Page 1 of 3 // 2 // ORDER Order No. 04.04.2023
04. WP(C) NO.8079 OF 2019
1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. This case at the instance of consumer involves the proceeding before G.R.F. as well as Ombudsman-II. In the factual background directed in the Writ Petition and submitted herein, this Court finds, the G.R.F. after threadbare hearing has come to the following conclusion:-
<Further, the complaint has claimed the power supply to his premises has been disconnected on dated:
16.04.2003 and due to misunderstanding with his uncle regarding payment of electricity dues, he was separated from his uncle and resided in his maternal uncle house along with his family. But, it is relevant to mention here that the claims of the complainant is not justified because, no such authentic document has been submitted by the complainant in support of the date of disconnection and he has paid Rs. 2500/- towards the energy charges on dated:08.08.2003 i.e. the date after disconnection of power supply claimed by him. Hence, it is very much clear that the complainant has been availing power supply and secondly, without availing power supply nobody will prefer to pay towards energy charges. But, the OP has neglected to take any effective step to resolve the billing dispute and to recover the arrear dues from the complainant.
However, in the counter the OP has mention, as per physical verification report of J.M.(Elect.) No.II Section, Soro on dtd. 22.11.13, it is found that original electrical installation are line meter, bend pipe and Service Connection wire were dilapidated condition and date of disconnection of power-supply is not found in the available office record.
In the above events forum feels it is reasonable to direct the opposite party to install a correct meter at the premises of complainant with proper sealing and revise the 8Lord factor9 bill from Apr92004 to till the date of installation meter on average consumption basis as per Regulation-97 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004.= Through the above, this Court has no hesitation to find the disconnection claim made by the Petitioner in the year 2003 has no foundation. The licensee even dispute to have any such record with Page 2 of 3 // 3 // them. Even in consideration of such allegation, the G.R.F. has come to order as follows:-
<In the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to direct the Opposite Party should install a correct meter at the premises of complainant with proper sealing and revise the 8Load factor9 bill from Apr92004 to till the date installation meter on average consumption basis as per Regulation-97 of the OERC Distribution ( Condition of Supply) Code, 2004. The O.P. is thus, directed to implement the order on the above basis within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.= Reading the order of the G.R.F., this Court finds, the G.R.F. in consideration of whole issue has taken reasonable view by directing installation of a fresh meter for the purpose of raising the fresh bill from April, 2004 in the installation of meter on average conversion basis as per regulation-97 of the OERC Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004.
3. The view of the G.R.F. as appears have been confirmed by the Ombudsman-II in the Appeal at the instance of the Petitioner- the consumer. For the limited role with this Court in considering issue involved herein and for there is already confirming order of two Authorities, this Court is not inclined to entertain further claim of the Petitioner the consumer.
4. This Writ Petition thus stands dismissed.
(Biswanath Rath) Judge (M.S.Sahoo) Judge U.Nayak Page 3 of 3