DATE OF FILING : 12-11-2009.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 21-05-2010.
Smt. Puspa Maji,
Wife of Sri Chandra Sekhar Maji,
Residing at 85/7, Shambhu Haldar Lane,
Salkia, P.S. Malipanchghora,
District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. District Engineer,
Representing by CESC Ltd.,
433/1, G.T. Road, Howrah – 1.
2. Debasis Bhattacharjee,
85/7, Shambhu Halder Lane, Salkia,
P.S. Malipanchghora, District – Howrah – 6.
3. Smt. Shika Bhattacherjee,
w/o. Sri Debasis Bhattacharjee,
residing at 85/7, Shambhu Halder Lane, Salkia,
P.S. Malipanchghora, District – Howrah. -------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri J. N. Ray.
2. Hon’ble Member : Dr. Dilip Kr. Chakraborty.
3. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representative for the complainant : Shri Dipendra Ghosh,
Ld. Advocate.
Representatives for the opposite party nos. 1
: Shri Abhijit Bagchi,
Smt. Kakali Mitra,
Ld. Advocate.
Representatives for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 :
Shri Alok Kumar Laha,
Shri Osi Ranjan Dutta,
Shri Raju Rabi Das,
Ld. Advocates.
F I N A L O R D E R
This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by one Puspa Maji against the o.ps. alleging deficiency in service.
The case of the complainant is that complainant is a consumer under the CESC Ltd. It is alleged that the o.p. no. 2 Debasis Bhattcharjee and o.p. no. 3 Smt. Shika Bhattacharjee have been consuming electricity by making hole in the electric connection resulting cause of damage to the complainant even they are taking illegal connection from underground cable and also have been enjoying electricity thereon. It is further alleged that the o.p. no. 2 runs plastic factory by way of consuming electricity from one tenant meter namely Gopal Mukhrjee for which a sum of Rs. 12,228/- becomes outstanding. When the complainant applied for getting electricity from the CESC Ltd. then she was directed to pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 12,228/- otherwise she will not get the electricity. Being aggrieved the complainant then filed complaint case before this Forum which was registered being HDF Case No. 114 of 2004 and in that case the then Ld. Forum has observed that o.p. no. 2 used the electricity by way of pilferage electricity from the said connection. It is contended that in rainy season dangerous accident may take place for which the complainant made several requests with the o.p. no. 2 but he did not pay any heed to her request. It is further contended that o.p. no. 3 is a contractor of CESC Ltd. and having higher influence upon the CESC Ltd. The present case thus arose for negligence of CESC Ltd.
In the written version the CESC Ltd. has denied every allegation. It is contended that on earlier occasion the complainant did not inform before the Forum about the pilferage of electricity by o.p. no. 2. It is further contended that there is a loss control cell where the complainant may approach for redressal of the same. The o.p. nos. 2 & 3 also denied each and every allegation and stated that the allegation made in the complaint against them are the dispute between the CESC Ltd. and the o.ps. no. 2 & 3. It is further submitted that the matter has already been settled and the present case does not lie for redressal. The allegation of making hole in the meter box is absolutely false, malafide, motivated at the instance of the complainant hereof. There was / is in any accident cause of alleged hole at the instance of the o.ps. no. 1, 2 & 3 and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against o.ps. no. 2 & 3 save and except the cost of case and the compensation which is without any basis. Moreover, the allegation in the complaint does not under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the allegation leveled in the complaint being fictitious and which is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost in favour of the o.ps. no. 2 & 3. It is also submitted that at best the complaint lodged by the complainant against the o.p. no. 1 and not on the o.ps. no. 2 & 3 as alleged and as the complaint is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost. Both parties filed separate brief notes of argument in respect of their case.
Point for determination whether the application is liable to be allowed or not ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
In the instant case we find from the pleadings of both sides that the dispute of pilfering electricity was already settled earlier at the time of disposal of the case bearing no. 114 of 2004 and in that case Ld. Forum held that the o.p. no. 2 Debasis Bhattacharjee, resident of 85/7, Shambhu Haldar Lane, Salkia, P.S. Malipanchghora, Howrah, has pilfered of electricity and for that the ld. Forum made observation to the effect “the notice of the CESC Ltd. we find that the o.p. no. 2 Debasis Bhattacharjee is in handling glove with CESC Ltd. so the CESC Ltd. is trying to protect Debasis Bhattacharjee and trying to shift the burden of arrear dues upon the complainant we find that the CESC as a grudge against the complainant.” The said copy of the judgment and order has been annexed as Annexure document marked ‘A’. Over that allegation the CESC Ltd. has also issued a letter upon Shri Debasis Bhattacharjee on 04-03-2002 by registered post for taking necessary action on the subject that disconnection of supply for pilferage of electricity at premises no. 85/7, Shambu Haldar Lane. Thus it clearly shows that the allegation which has been made in the instant case for pilferage of electricity by Debasis Bhattacharjee is a past dispute and the same is now time barred for further action. The matter which was settled earlier cannot be re-opened now in any way. It is totally ;barred by limitation. The allegation of making hole in the meter box is a dispute in between complainant and the o.ps. no. 2 & 3 and filing of the instant case is of no avail to give any substantial relief to the complainant. Admittedly there is a forum in the electricity department i.e., Loss Control Cell. If that be so the complainant my approach the Loss Control Cell for taking proper action and the same cannot be agitated in the Forum in any way. Thus the allegation in the complaint does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and the allegation leveled by the complainant is found to be not tenable which is liable to be rejected. In case of pilferage of electricity this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain for removal of the defect in a summary trial which needs details investigation.
Having heard on both sides and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is not tenable on the ground of limitation as well as for want of proper jurisdiction and it is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is dismissed on contest but without
costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The case is thus disposed of.
Supply the copies of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs.
