DATE OF FILING : 13-04-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 21-06-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-11-2012.
Harish Kumar Chowdhury,
s/o. late Kailash Chowdhury,
residing at 25, Rameshwar malia 1st Bye Lane,
P.S. & District –Howrah,
PIN – 711101. ------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. CESC Ltd.,
having its office at
433/1, G.T. Road ( N ), P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101.
2. CESC House,
Eastern Building ( 4th Floor )
of 15/1, Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata – 700 069.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. for reconnection of the electric line which was disconnected on 02-03-2012 on the allegation of catering electricity to the meter no. 1634889 standing in the name of Ram Ratan Chowdhury whose domestic line was disconnected on 25-10-2002 on the ground of theft of electricity.
2. The contention of the o.p. CESC Authority is that during inspection on 02-
03-2012 it was detected that the complainant Harish Kumar Chowdhury was catering electricity to the domestic meter of Ram Ratan Chowdhury whose supply was disconnected on 25-10-2002 on the ground of theft of electricity ; that the o.ps. CESC Authority is ready to reconnect the line of the complainant in case he pays the assessed amount of Rs. 4,127/- inclusive of the government duty
3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The main
contention of the o.p. is that the complainant in a clandestine manner supplied electricity to the meter no. 1634889 belonging to one Ram Ratan Chowdhury whose electricity connection was disconnected on 25-10-2002. If the complainant as per the direction of the assessing authority pays up Rs. 4,127/-, they have no objection in supplying the electricity to the meter no. 2554771-G belonging to Harish Kumar Chowdhury.
5. The pertinent question comes in if Harish Kumar Chowdhury is bound to
pay up the assessed charge of Rs. 4,127/- as condition precedent for renewal of the electricity. On scrutiny of the record, it appears that the o.ps. CESC Authority never mentioned any particular date from when the catering as alleged was initiated, presumably the o.ps. relied upon a date i.e. 25-10-2002. On this date the electric line to the meter of Ram Ratan was disconnected on the allegation of theft. Complainant purchased the flat on 31-03-2002 and enjoying the electricity through his own meter being consumer no. 60020175001 since the date of his purchase of his flat. The electric line of the complainant was disconnected 02-03-2012 on the ground of unauthorized catering of electric supply to the meter of Ram Ratan Chowdhury whose connection was stopped on 25-10-2002. Then are we to assume that the complainant Harish Kumar Chowdhury started supplying electricity since after the date of disconnection i.e. 25-10-2002 ? Again are we to further assume that for ten years' unauthorized supply of electricity to the meter of Ram Ratan Chowdhury, as alleged, the complainant caused financial loss to the CESC Authority only for a paltry amount of Rs. 4,127 ? To our estimation it ought to have been huge amount instead of Rs. 4,127/- as a man of common prudence shall fathom that consumption of electricity for ten years can never be Rs. 4,127/-. This lead us to the definite conclusion that the o.ps. have assessed such amount on the basis of conjuncture and surmise labelling a frivolous charge of catering against the complainant. We must say that this highhandedness on the part of the CESC Authority is just to harass the complainant who is a military personal and not easily amenable to any rigid terms and is very vocal to unjustified demand. Therefore, we are further of the view that this demand for Rs. 4,127/- has no basis at all. And as such he is not bound to pay as condition precedent for renewal of the supply of electricity.
6. If the unauthorized catering of the electricity by the complainant to the
meter of Ram Ratan Chowdhury is an offence, the o.ps. ought to have started a theft case U/S 135, 138 & 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Special Court.
7. Arguably, if the complainant pays Rs. 4,127/- as whimsically charged by
the o.ps. CESC Authority for renewal of his electric line, where is the guarantee that the o.ps. authority shall not saddle him with further huge amount arbitrarily for last 10 years without any basis. This is just an autocratic behavior adopted by the CESC Authority to harass a commoner in charging Rs. 4,127/- as observed earlier.
8. We are not unmindful of the submission of the complainant that his meter
is fitted in an open place and if somebody having mussel power abstract his electric line to any other meter during his absence and without his knowledge, how the complainant shall be blamed. The complainant has been fighting on principle for long nine months living in the dark placing his entire family in deplorable condition. This shows his bonafide, charged with commendable moral infused in him by virtue of his military service. Had he been guilty, he would have deposited the paltry amount of Rs. 4,127/- and could secure his electric line. We further reiterate that the assessment of financial loss arrived at by the assessing authority is based on surmise not supported by any cogent believable account or document or meter reading and as such the complainant cannot suffer at the whims of the o.ps. CESC Authority.
9. We are armed with a very recent landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 7899 of 2012 arising out of SLP ( C ) No. 35573 of 2010 in the case between North Eastern Electricity Company of Orissa ( NESCO ) Vs. M/S. Roghu Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. The Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi observed that the authorities cannot set a precondition that a new connection will be given only subject to payment of arrears. The tenor and spirit of the entire judgment as handed down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is very radical and sends a unique signal to the electricity authority all over India. If by virtue of its landmark judgment Hon'ble Apex Court exempts the respondent Roghu Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd. from paying up nearly Rs. 80 lacks unduly claimed by the NESCO, why the o.ps. CESC Authority cannot be directed to restore the electric connection of the humble complainant and exempt him from depositing the charged amount of Rs. 4,127/-.
In the result, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 33 of 2012 ( HDF 33 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest without costs as against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps. CESC Authority be directed to restore the electricity as expeditiously as possible preferably within 15 days from the date of this order . The complainant be directed to pay Rs. 4,127/- not as a charge as assessed by the CESC Authority which shall be adjusted by the CESC Authority when issuing the prospective bills vis-à-vis the consumption of the energy.
The o.ps. CESC be directed to pay a damage and compensation for Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant, a bonafide consumer, for prolonged harassment caused to his family.
No order as to costs.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
