IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/77/2016
Date of Filing: 10.05.16 Date of Final Order: 13.09.18
Complainant: 1) Rahima Bewa
W/O Abdur Rehaman
2) Abdul Gaffar
both of Vill. Bilbari, P.O. Bhattabati ,
P.S.-Nabagram,
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742184
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Assistant Station Manager, WBSEDCL
Consumer Care centre, Nabagram,
P.O&P.S.-Nabagram,
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742184
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Surojit Banerjee
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri Siddhartha Sankar Dhar
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ………….....Member.
FINAL ORDER
ASISH KUMAR SENAPATI, PRESIDING MEMBER.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act,1986.
One Rahima Bewa and Abdul Gaffar( here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against the Assistant Station Manager, WBSEDCL, CCC, Nabagram ( here in after referred to as the OP) alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows.
One Abdur Rehaman, since deceased, had a small business for running his livelihood and after death of Abdul Rehaman, the Complainants are running the said business for earning livelihood. The Complainants are carrying on business of wheat grinding, oil seed crashing at their mill by Complainant No.1 and other brother on their behalf and the Complainants have no other means of livelihood. That the OP started PS Case No.456/2014 for theft of electricity under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, asking them to pay provisional assessment of fine of Rs.15,85,797/-, consequent of which electric line of the Complainants was disconnected. The OP assessed the final bill of Rs.1,55,029/- and the Complainant paid the said amount by two installments along with re-connection fee of Rs.100/- and the electricity was restored on 01.01.16. That the Complainants received a bill amounting Rs.2,05,609.72/- towards consumption of electricity charges. The said bill is absurd, imaginary, fictitious and baseless. The Complainants requested the OP for consideration but of no result. The OP has deficiency in service. The Complainants prayed for directing the OP not to claim Rs.2,05,609.72/- from the Complainants and not to disconnect the electricity line.
The OP put its appearance by filing written version on 12.07.17 contending, that the complaint is not maintainable and the Complainants are not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case relating to bill dispute. It is the specific case of the OP that a case was lodged against the Complainants vide Nabagram PS Case No. 457/2014 dated 15.11.14 for theft of electricity and after final assessment, the Complainants paid the bill on final assessment in two installments. After payment a bill for LPSC of Rs. 2,05,609.72/- was generated and the dispute was referred to the Divisional Computer Center for solution and the process is pending. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for decision
- Are the Complainants consumers under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged ?
- Are the Complainants entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainants submits that the Complainants are consumers as they hired services of the OP.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that according to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986, “consumer’’ means who “hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.”
It is contended that commercial purpose does not include services availed by him/her exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment but in the present case the Complainants have not stated in the complaint that they are carrying the business of wheat grinding mill for the purposes of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainants and the xerox copies of the documents filed by the Complainants. It is the specific case of the Complainants that one Abdur Rehaman was a consumer of electricity under the OP and the Complainants are heirs/beneficiaries of Abdur Rehaman. The term consumer has been defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Hiring of services for a consideration excludes a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose and commercial purpose does not include services availed by him/her exclusively for the purpose of earning his/her livelihood by means of self-employment. It is the case of the Complainants that they are carrying on a wheat grinding mill for earning livelihood but it has not been stated that they hired the services exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainants have failed to prove that they are consumers in terms of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Point Nos. 2, 3 & 4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainants submits that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the OP has deficiency in service. He argues that the OP is not entitled to realize the disputed amount of Rs.2,05,609.72/- from the Complainants. He prays for passing appropriate direction against the OP.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainants are not consumers under the OP and the Complainants committed theft of electricity for which Nabagram PS Case No.457/2014 was instituted against the Complainants on 15.11.14. It is argued that the Complainants paid the final bill assessed by the OP in two installments and subsequently, a bill was generated amounting Rs2,05,609.72/- claiming LPSC and the dispute was sent to the Divisional Computer Center for solution and the process is pending. He contends that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. We have already held that the Complainants are not consumers in terms of section 2(1)(d) (ii)of the CP Act, 1986. The OP has generated a bill amounting Rs.2,05,609.72/- claiming LPSC from the Complainants and the dispute was sent to the Divisional Computer Manager for solution and the process is pending. In the circumstance, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As the Complainants are not consumers in terms of section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act, 1986 , the Complainants are not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed and admitted on 10.05.16. The OP contested the case by filing W.V. on 12.07.17.This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the C.P. Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
