BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION.
KAMRUP
C.C.No.31/2016
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S(Rtd.)-President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc,Former Dy
Director, FCS & CA - Member
Sri Ananda Talukder - Complainant
S/O –Late Nabin Talukder
Village.Godebori
P.O. and P.S. Palashbari
District: Kamrup, Assam
-vs-
I) Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd, - Opposite parties
Ulubari, Guwahati-7.
2) The Executive Engineer
Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd,
Subdivision Engineer office, Mirza
Kamrup, Assam
3) Subdivision Engineer
Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd,
Subdivision Engineer office, Mirza
Kamrup, Assam.
4) Assistant Engineer
Subdivision Engineer office, Mirza
Kamrup, Assam.
5) C. Sarma A.E. (REV), MESD
Subdivision Engineer office, Mirza
Kamrup, Assam.
6) R.Kalita AE(PP) MESD
Subdivision Engineer office, Mirza
Kamrup, Assam.
7) J.P.Roy (JM) MESD
Subdivision Engineer office, Mirza
Kamrup, Assam.
Appearance
Learned advocate Sri Naba Prasad Baruah for the complainant .
Learned advocate Mr. N.J.Dutta, Mr.K.D.Sarma, Mr.R.R.Kaushik, for the opp.party
Date of filing written argument:- 16.6.20 (Exparte)
Date of oral argument: 5.1.21 (Exparte)
Date of judgment: - 21.1.21
JUDGMENT
1) This is a complaint filed by one Sri Ananda Talukdar claiming himself as a consumer of Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. The complainant submits that he is a consumer having Consumer No. 029000014792 and Meter No. 14605 who was paying bills regularly from the date of connection.
2) It is stated by the complainant that on 14.3.16 a team of personnel from APCDL inspected the complainants house without any notice and thereafter on 22.3.16 complainant received a hand filled bill amounting to Rs.53,072/- bill dtd. 16.3.16 with assessment report showing excess of 8.33 K/W. The complainant went to the opp.party to enquire about the exorbitant bill but the opp.party did not give any importance and rather asked the complainant to pay the amount or to face consequence of disconnection. The complainant paid his regular bill on 28.3.16 , but electricity supply to his residential house was disconnected on 29.3.16 inspite of showing payment receipt of his regular bill and without any formal notice. The Act of the opp.party had disturbed the day to day activity of house hold of the complainant and made him highly aggrieved mentally and physically.
3) The complainant further stated that, due to negligence, deficiency of service of the opp.party the complainant and his family are suffering from mental agony and shock and prayed for compensation amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- and also to pass an order directing the opp.party to reconnect the electricity supply to the complainant.
4) The complainant side meanwhile filed a petition vide No. 397/16 for granting an ad-interim order directing the opp.party to reconnect the electricity line in the petitioners home (Consumer No. 029000014792 and Meter No. 14605) . A misc.case vide No. 3/16 was registered and an ad-interim order was passed and issued to the opp.parties on 6.4.16 to reconnect the power connection to the complainant /petitioner until final disposal of the petition. Notices were issued to the opp.parties to show cause as to why the interim order should not be made absolute.
5) The opp.party side thereafter filed a written objection to the ad-interim order and both the sides were heard on 2.6.16 and the ad-interim order passed on 6.4.16 was made absolute by order dtd. 17.6.16 against which the opp.party preferred an appeal before the honorable state commission.
6) The Hon’ble State Commission vide letter No. F.A 54/2016 dtd. 15.3.17 call for the case record and the Misc. case No. 5/16 along with consumer No. 31/2016 were sent to the Hon’ble State Commission on 21.6.17.
7) The Hon’ble State Commission registered a First Appeal Case vide No. 54 of 2016 and finaly passed judgment on 19.11.2019 upholding the order of the District Forum and the appeal was dismissed. The Hon’ble State Commission returned back the case records directing the parties to appear before the District Forum on 20.1.20. But the opp.party failed to appear before the District Forum inspite of having such an order from the Hon’ble State Commission.
8) The opposite party appeared and only contested the Misc.Case arising out of Consumer Case No. 31/2016. In result two misc.case vide No. 3/16 & 5/16 were disposed of during pendency of the original suit, but the opp.party had not turned up to contest this original proceeding by filing written statement etc. and hence vide order dtd. 14.3.17 the matter was taken up for exparte evidence. Ultimately the complainant submitted evidence on affidavit on 1.6.16 and thereafter the matter was heard exparte and the evidence of the complainant was taken for evaluating the merit of the case. Since the ad-interim for re-connection of the electricity to the house of the complainant and it was made absolute till disposal of the suit. We need no further discussion of the above issue, but we are concern about the irregularity and deficiency in service if any caused by the opp.party.
9) Under the above circumstances the matter was finally heard exparte from the complainant side. In this case the complainant himself presented as a witness (C.W.1) and claimed that he was provided with a electricity connection vide consumer No. 029000014792 and Meter No. 146405 and claimed that he was regularly paying electricity bill till date. According to the complainant on 14.3.16 the opp.party No. 5,6 & 7 forcibly entered into their house campus and saying that they are APCDL personnel coming for inspection , but they have failed to show any notice issued from the company and went away.
10) It is alleged further that on 22.3.16 complainant received a bill amounting to Rs. 53,072/- dtd. 16.3.16 showing an assessment report of excess use of 8.33 K.W. The complainant was surprised and according to him the said bill was received on 22.3.16 and due date was reflected as on 23.3.16 which was a holiday.
11) Under the above circumstances complainant went to opp.party No. 2, 3 & 4 who had not given any importance of the matter and told him to pay the amount or otherwise face the consequences. The above testimony of the complainant is found consistent with the complaint petition. It is further submitted that regular bill was received by the complainant on 11.3.16 which was due on 23.3.16 and accordingly the regular bill was deposited by the complainant at electricity sub-division , Mirza on 28.3.16.
12) On 29.3.16 the electricity supply to the complainant house was dis-connected by the electricity personnel inspite of showing the payment of regular bill on 23.6.16. The complainant further claimed that he requested the opp.party not to disconnect the electricity connection without causing formal notice. But never given heed to it. Such act of the opp.party have caused disruption to the day to day activity to the complainant . This part of the evidence of the complainant along with the documents at Ex.2, Ex. 3 and Ex.4 undisputedly proof the fact that there were regular payment of electricity bill, but dis-connection was done for non-payment of an excess amount of Rs. 53,072/-.
13) The aforesaid evidence on affidavit of the complainant remain on record and the op.party had not rebutted the same by cross –examining the witness or by adducing any evidence to dis-believe the above fact.
14) The evidence of the complainant reveals the fact that opp.party need to serve a notice as per provisions of the electricity Act informing about unauthorized load and to furnish a declaration. But as per evidence of the complainant this has not been done by the opp.party and they did arbitrarily by violating the provisions of this Act. It is again stated that the inspection need to be done in presence of the owner of the premises and his signature is required to be taken on the inspection report prepared by the opp.party.
15) It is further claimed stating that notice for payment of penalty amounting to Rs.53,072/- was served on 22.3.16 payable within a day e.g. on 23.3.16 which is also a irregular act of the opp.party and they have not paid any heed to it when complainant approached the opp.party.
16) In the given circumstances the documents submitted by the complainant as Ext.5, Ext.6 , Ext.7 and Ext.8 are duly perused and considered which are found in conformity with the testimony of the complainant.
17) The allegation made by the complainant that the act of the opp.party have caused sufficient harassment and disconnection of electric connection without proper notice and without observing the formalities required by law is nothing but the deficiency in service towards the consumer of the opp.party APCDL.
18) It is the established proposition of law that electricity supply is a legal right and denial of it is a violation of human rights. The law have provided certain procedure to follow before disconnecting a power line to any individual , but in the present case op.party have failed to establish any fact that they have made effort to observe the formalities giving proper notice to the complainant before disconnecting his electric line .
19) In our present case in hand the complainant approach this forum for reconnection of electric line and this forum after due hearing of the parties by a speaking order in misc.case no. 5/2016 dtd. 17.6.16 observed that electric power is an essential service and disconnecting the running electric line amount to disrupting the normal life of the family member of the house hold .
20) It further observed that APCDL is a service provider of the consumers of the power and there is an allegation of consumer bill from the complainant side for which complainant approach this forum and
directed the opp.party to reconnect the power connection to the house of the complainant on 6.4.2016, which was made absolute by this Forum after due hearing.
21) Under the above circumstances it is not necessary to discuss further on the issue of disconnection of electric line to the house of the complainant which was subsequently affirmed by the State Consumer Commission vide its order dtd. 19.11.19 in the Appeal No. 54/2016.
22) In such a situation the claimant prayed for granting compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs)only with a further prayer for directing the opp.party not to disconnect the supply of electricity and to set aside the issue a bill dtd. 16.3.16 allegedly made without following the provisions of law. The opp.party having knowledge about such an amount of claim have not turned up to rebut the same.
23) In the result our deliberation and thoughtful view is that opp.party need to do the assessment of excess consumption of power afresh by following the laid down procedure of law. So far compensation is concerned we are of the view that amount claimed is little excessive , but opp.party having knowledge have not turned up to contest on the said issue and as such an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) is considered to be justified. Accordingly opp.party is further directed to pay a compensation amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand)only as a compensation under section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 along with the cost of the proceeding amounting to Rs.20,000/-. The whole decreetal amount is to be paid within 45 days failing which opp.party have to pay an interest @ 12% per annum on the entire decreetal amount from the date of judgment till realization.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Commission, Kamrup, this the 21st day of January,2021.
Member Member President
