DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _46_ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING : 7.4.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _7.5.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Ranjit Kumar Pal, son of late Manik Pal of Village-Pratapnagar, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Champahati C.C.C, P.S Baruipur, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The abrupt disconnection of electric line of the complainant on 23.12.2016 has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986, praying for reconnection of the said electric line.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant has a domestic electric connection and he has been enjoying such connection since 23.1.2012 . Payment of electric bill has also been made regularly by him without incurring any kind of default. On 23.12.2016 the O.P nos. 1 and 2 made a surprise inspection to the locality and caused disconnection his electric line without assigning any kind of reason. He has repeatedly knocked at the door of the O.P nos. 1 and 2 for giving reconnection to his house but his requests has fallen flat and no positive response has been obtained from them i.e O.P nos. 1 and 2 . Hence, this case is filed by the complainant, praying for issuing a direction to the O.Ps to give reconnection of electric line to his house and also for compensation.
The O.P nos. 1 and 2 have been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that on 23.12.2016 an inspection team of Officers of the O.Ps visited the locality and came to see that Amit Pal, son of Ranjit Pal , the present complainant, used electricity to his home by way of theft. So , according to them, they disconnected the electric line and a provisional bill has also been prepared by them in accordance with the Regulation. That provisional bill has not been paid by the complainant and, therefore, reconnection of electric line has not been given to him. According to them, the case is not maintainable and , as such, it should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in Law ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have led their Evidences on affidavit which are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1& 2 :-
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the O.Ps has argued that the instant case is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the submission of the O.Ps, the complainant committed theft of energy and, therefore, FIR has been lodged against him. The instruments which were used for causing theft of energy has also been seized and a proceeding has also been instituted agaisn the complainant before the competent authority. So, the instant case is not maintainable inasmuch as theft of energy has involved herein.
Considered the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the complaint and the written statement and also the evidence led on behalf of the parties.
Considered all these.
Coming to the facts and circumstances of the instant case , it is found that Sri Amit Pal, son of Ranjit Pal i.e the complainant used electricity for domestic purpose through tapping the service cable from incoming side and by bypassing the meter of O.Ps. So, an FIR has been lodged against him by the O.Ps on 23.12.2016. A copy of the FIR is filed herein and a specific case i.e Sonarpur P.S case no. 269 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016 has been started against the son of the complainant for theft of electric energy. A copy of seizure list is also filed on behalf of the O.Ps and from this seizure list it is found that some articles have been seized by the Assistant Engineer and S.M of Champahati Customer Care Centre from the house of the complainant.
On perusal of all these documents it is crystal clear that a charge of theft has been leveled against the complainant by the O.P Department . Now to see whether the instant complaint under Consumer Protection Act is maintainable by the complainant, especially when a charge of theft is brought against him by the O.Ps.
The matter is no longer res-integra and it has been decided several times by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission that wherever there is an allegation of power theft, the complaint under Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable vide Ganesh Ghosh Vs. G.M WBSEDCL 2017(1) CPR 813 (NC) and the said rulingwas passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, relyhing upon the case of U.P Power Corporation Limited Vs. Anis Ahmedreported in (2013) 8SCC 491.
In view of the legal position as pointed out above, we feel no difficulty to hold that the instant complaint by the complainant is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as there is charge of theft brought against the complainant.
Point nos. 1 and 2 are thus answered against the complainant.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without cost .
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
