Complainant Sri Sandip Baidya S/O Shri Sristidhar Baidya PO: Akalpur (R.K.Pally), PS: Gazole, Dist.: Malda (W.B.) | Vs. Opposite Parties 1)West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Represented by :- Vidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake, Kolkata. 2)Chairman West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. Gazole Consumer Care Centre Represented by :- Station Manager PO: Gazole, PS: Gazole Dist.: Malda (W.B.) |
Present | 1. | Sri Debi Prasad Mallik, President |
2. | Sri Debdas Mukhopadhyay, Member |
| 3. | Smt. Nabanita Kar, Member |
For Complainant No.: Sri Joy Narayan Chowdhury, Advocate
For the O.P Nos. 1 & 2: Nargis Ara Khatun, Advocate
Order No.22 dt. 23.12.2014
This is an application U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner Sri Sandip Baidya praying for a direction on the O.P. to refund of Rs. 6271/- and waive of bill amount and continue the electric connection, and Rs. 50000/- for harassment and mental agony and cost of litigation.
The case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturist and his livelihood depends on the agricultural yields. The complainant after application obtained quotation from electricity line for running submersible pump and the date of quotation was 07.01.2014, validity of the same is 07.04.2014. Complainant paid Rs. 6271/- on 13.01.2014 to the respondent and power was thrown on 16.01.2014
At the time of issuing yellow card the service connection number was recorded as 3000928107. There are three meters but only one meter number was recorded in this space specified, in the place of date of connection and initial reading something else was recorded but no date of connection recorded. It is almost difficult to fathom what was reading on 16.01.2014 the date of meter was installed. The unfair trade practice of the O.P. is vivid from the initial stage of installation of the meter.
The O.Ps contested the case by filing a written version stating that the case is not maintainable and the petitioner filed the case suppressing material facts and he has no cause of action to file the case. All are false and fabricated made by the petitioner. The O.P. sent a Provisional Assessment Bill for pilferage of energy.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed:-
- Is the case 13/2014 is maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the O.Ps?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
:DECISION WITH REASONS::
Issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4
All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration and also all these issues are interrelated and interdependent.
Petitioner examined himself as P.W.-1 and he categorically stated that he has three meters of separate connection and connection number was recorded 3000928107 but consumer serial number not mentioned. He further stated in his evidence that on 16.01.2014 the meter was installed and the Electric Department sent a huge amount of bill. So he filed this case and to substantiate the fact he filed some documents which are marked Exts.1 to 5. i.e. money receipt, quotation copy, money receipt dt. 13.01.2014, assessment bill dt. 07.02.2014, meter reading dt. 16.01.2014. In the cross-examination this P.W.-1 admits that O.Ps came to his house on 05.02.2014 and he filed this case on 21.02.2014. It is also established in this case that he received one bill from the electricity department (O.P.) for pilferage of energy by Sandip Baidya and the Ext.-4 speaks that the Electricity Department charged him for the direct hooking. It is crystal clear from the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence in which it is established that the petitioner after getting the Ext. -4 he filed this case to get rid of the said demand of the O.Ps. It is established that the O.P. is not coming with a clean hand and he admits in his cross-examination that he filed this case after getting huge amount of bill. As per the provisions of this act and as per the decision made by the Law of the Land – Jurisdiction of the Consumer Court in the case of theft of electricity is no longer a ‘Consumer’ and the petition cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum and he is no longer a consumer when the allegation of theft of electricity is charged against him.
In view of above, the claim case fails.
Court fee, paid is correct.
Hence, ordered,
that Malda D.F. C. Case No. 13/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost.
Let a copy of the order be given to the contesting parties free of cost.
