JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted thatop promulgated a scheme sometime around 2006 under the name and style CRES Voluntary Advance Payment Scheme and the salient feature of the said scheme stood on the three column Convenience Returns Security to avail of that scheme and complainant joined the scheme on 10.06.2006 by depositing of Rs. 50,000/- against his CRES account having A/C No. 22408 on the same terms and conditions and as per said scheme, complainant’s monthly energy bill should be adjusted from the balance of the said amount of the account month by month till such balance is exhausted and the credit balance  earns interest  at the rate 9.5percent p.a. shall be paid by the op and said transaction continued smoothly up to 31.07.2013 and the balance stood as on 31.07.2013 as Rs. 28,687.46 paisa.

          But suddenly op introduced a new scheme after 31.07.2013 called Advance Payment Scheme and rate of interest is only 6. p.a. and op advised the complainant to change over to the new scheme and thereafter sent a letter on 10.10.2013 to allow the complainant to switch over a new scheme with initial terms and conditions of the CRES Scheme and op received the said letter and replied vide letter dated 06.11.2013 either to withdraw the balance amount or to continue with the Advance Payment Schemewith applicable interest as fixed as per Advance Payment Scheme because old scheme is discontinued.  It is alleged by the complainant that at the time of launching the CRES Scheme there was no closure of the said scheme and for which complainant vide a letter dated 11.11.2013 explained the salient features CRES Scheme and its terms and conditions and expressed that complainant is not agreeable to the request of the op for change of scheme and refund of balance amount as reported by the op and practically op is bound to continue the same when complainant as per their scheme deposited the same but op has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and for which the ops adopted unfair trade practices and at the same time has caused various type of monetary loss, mental agony and harassment and further has not rendered his actual service as per their scheme.  So, op is bound to continue the same and give such relief to the complainant and for the above reasons, complainant has prayed for redressal.

          On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant is a consumer of the company having connection No. 08005042017 and he had a CRES account bearing No. 22408 linked to his consumer number.  But it is specifically mentioned that CRES was a Voluntary Advance Scheme made available to the consumers of the company to facilitate payment of monthly consumption bills by way of adjustment with the CRES account and in the process, the consumer did not go through the usual botheration of having to deposit on receipt of the bill at the cash offices of the op by standing in the queue while at the same time the availability of the rebate is ensured and any consumer could at any point of time, delink himself from the CRES Scheme by withdrawing the remaining balance at the point of time of such withdrawal.  Similarly the licensing company might also close the scheme upon due notice to the account holders.

          Prior to the closure of the CRES Scheme, the company by its letter dated 27.05.2013 intimated all the consumers including the complainant about the proposed closure of CRES Scheme and the consumer was giventhe option to either opt for refund of the balance of the deposited amount or to transfer the same to the Advance Payment Scheme and in the present case complainant did not opt for refund of balance amount.  So, same was transferred to Advance Payment Scheme in accordance with the letter dated 27.05.2013.

          Complainant on closure of the CRES Scheme expressed his dissatisfaction by observing that the rate of interest offered in the discarded CRES Scheme was higher than what was being offered under the Advance Payment Scheme.  The company tried to explain the matterintimated to the complainant that CRES Scheme was not a public deposit scheme and nor it was a perpetual scheme and the company floated the scheme for the convenience and benefit of the consumers and later chose to close the scheme upon prior intimation to the CRES account holders and by offering either refund of the balance deposit or to switch over the funds to the alternate Advance Deposit Scheme at the sole choice of the consumer.

          No doubt the matter was referred by the complainant to CA&FBP, Govt. of West Bengal, but the matter could not be mediated on the ground that complainant did not accept the entire legal proposition and practically the complainant’s present complaint is not tenable in the eye of law in view of the fact that the present CRES Scheme is not a scheme of any banking institution.  But it is a Voluntary Advance Payment Scheme and as per terms and conditions of the CRES Scheme it can be closed or the company reserved the right to alter any amount any terms and conditions as at any point of time without any assessing and it is not the procedure so the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          Now after considering the entire fact and circumstances and also the materials, it is found that there is nothing but Convenience Returns Security which is Voluntary Advance Payment Scheme.  So apparently it is found that it is not a fixed deposit nor any other purpose like bank because salient features of the same is minimum initial advance of Rs. 5,000/- shall be made and advance paid in cash will be accepted up to maximum limit of Rs. 19,000/- and the periodical the advance can be paid in advance and increase the same.  But practically the said advance can be made by the consumer by filing an application for convenient option to pay electricity bill of the consumer if any credit after deduction is found against that credit balance in advance earns rate of interest 9.5percent p.a. and practically CRES is Convenience Return Security that means it is convenient for payment of bill through adjustments and it was introduced to avoid queue for every month to pay bill by the consumers. 

          So considering that Voluntary Advance Payment Scheme it is clear that it is not a fixed deposit, nor any other deposit made as per banking rules.  So, considering that fact we are convinced to hold that complainant has failed miserably to prove that there was any deficiency and negligence on the part of the op.  Moreover from the said terms and conditions of the Voluntary Advance Payment Scheme (Convenience Return Security) it is clear that the company deserved the right to alter any all terms and conditions as discussed above at any point of time and without assigning any reason there and considering that terms and conditions we find that in the meantime whatever board of the op discontinued the scheme and introduced a new scheme i.e. Advance Payment Scheme and complainant was informed either to get refund of the balance amount with interest or to switch over the new scheme.  Complainant did not agree to get back the said amount but he raised objection stating that the said amount shall be converted into new scheme and interest must be given as per previous rate  at the rate 9.5percent p.a.  But such sort of prayer of the complainant to the op is not tenable in the eye of law and complainant cannot agree and pressure upon the electricity authority about their decision.  If complainant thinks that his right has been influenced in that case complainant can challenge such sort of decision of the op before the Hon’ble High Court or West Bengal State Electricity Regulatory Authority (W.B.S.E.R.A.) but Consumer Forum has no legal right to decide such sort of infringement of right of the complainant as alleged they rightly infringement of right of the complainant is established by the complainant. 

          On the contrary we have gathered that op authority rightly switch over the new scheme and it is their right and consumer cannot invoke any clause to the op companyand fact remains if complainant has any grievance, complainant may file application before the W.B.S.E.R.A. for any decision or before the Hon’ble High Court because the deficiency and negligence on the part of the op has not been proved.  Further it is to be mentioned that scheme is not banking scheme but it is advance payment scheme and practically complainant by adopting such scheme get such relief from appearingin the queue for payment monthly bill in lieu of that he used to get some interest in respect of that balance amount.

          So, loss of time and harassment was completely decreased for joining such a scheme and practically such sort of scheme are hoisted by different service provider only to give the consumer a chance to avoid any queue or line and waste time for payment of bill and that is no doubt a very good scheme and interest is not the criteria.  Whether the consumer will get interest or not that is not vital but any scheme by service provider to the consumer is advance payment scheme if it is found that the consumer has saved this time that is the highest interest paid by the service provider and in the present case no doubt op CESC authority gave proper relief to the consumers by releasing that CRES Scheme for advance payment.  No doubt in this case it is proved that complainant since the date of adopting the CRES scheme is not appearing before the Electricity Office and cash section for payment of bill since 2006.

          So, no doubt he has continued by adopting that scheme and the nature of interest is only additional relief and that has been changed by the company authority which has not anyway infringedthe right of the complainant.  Rather complainant is given the same benefit for advance payment onlythe rate of interest is changed in view of the fact invariably complainant has realized that it is not a banking authority.  So, in respect of fluctuating balance amount the interest rate cannot be more than 6percent p.a. as per RBI Rule and company board released that and changed the interest rate only for which op has not committed any offence and has not adopted any unfair trade practice or by such decision of the company law board no doubt the consumer is not deprived from getting the proper service in respect of advance payment scheme.

          Anyhow the consumer society of India are not properly trained and educated in respect of the consumer science, consumer behavior and they are not also within the ambit of consumerism.  Practically psychological effect of the consumer are not adhered properly by the Forum or higher authorities for various reasons and for which many consumers are found filing such sort of cases are getting some relief.

          Nowadays no doubt the consumers are very much interested to get some bonus, interest, gift etc. against such payment or against such purchase.  But company before giving any relief or bonus or gift against any payment must have to think over the matter whether in future for discontinuation dissatisfaction of the consumer may cause a revolution against the service provider or company and no doubt world consumer regulators have warned the companies not to give such sort of gift, bonus etc. in respect of providing service and if it is offered it must be for a limited period so that the consumer can be aware of the fact that such a gift or bonus or interest are not any right to get any service for advance payment.

          After proper evaluation of the entire complaint and the grievance of the complainant we are confirmed that this case is a psychological effect of the complainant for not getting 9.5percent interest p.a. in respect of advance payment scheme.  No doubt psychological aspect of the consumer must be properly assessed by the corporate body before giving any gift, interest, bonus or any lucrative offer and further any such offer must be offered by the corporate authority for any fixed period and it must be noted specifically that it is not as of right.  Now in the present case we have gathered that the op company very specifically mentioned that matter that this scheme can be altered or modified at any point of time and complainant relied upon that terms and conditions but even then they appeared and filed this complaint for relief and invariably it indicates that complainant being a very educated person is not properly trained and educated about the psychological aspect of the consumer and no doubt such a consumer behavior is only found before the Forum and practically Fora are not aware how such sort of problem of the consumer can be properly redress and only to give lesson to all the consumers about such sort of scheme, this Forum is requesting all the consumers to know against any service if any interest or any gift or any other is made by any authority against any advance payment against any service made by the corporate authority such offer or gift or etc. are nothing but a gift for a some period or interest for some period.  But it is not a deposit to bank deposited as per RBI rules and present company has no license to run such a banking business.

          In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that no doubt the complaint is misconceived one and truth is that there is no fault or negligence on the part of the op and no doubt op has never deceived the complainant and change of rate of interest against advance payment by the ops is regular and legal.

          Accordingly the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op but without any cost.