Date of filing: 15.09.2016

Date of hearing: 29.09.2016

PER HON’BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

       The instant Revisional Application under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ ) is at the behest of Opposite Party to impeach the Order no.03 dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No.78 of 2016 thereby the Ld. District Forum directed the Opposite Party i.e. the Station Manager of WBSEDCL, Ballymore C.C.C., Kalitala to restore the electric connection in the house of the Complainant within three days subject to further deposit of an amount of Rs.6,000/- by the Complainant.

       The Opposite Party herein Smt. Chandra Chatterjee approached the Ld. District Forum with the complaint with prayer for certain reliefs, viz – (a) a direction upon the Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Ballymore CCC, Kalitala, near Bandel Church to reconnect the electric connection immediately; (b) a direction to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony; (c) a sum of Rs.35,000/- as litigation cost etc.  

       Upon hearing Mr. Tapabrata Bhattacharyay and Mr. Srijan Nayak,  Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that the Complainant has made a          prayer for reconnection in respect of electric connection which stood in the name of one Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee at Tewaripara, Ballymore, Hooghly.  The said Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee passed away on 11.11.1976 leaving behind him his wife - Prabhavati Mukherjee, son – Sunil Mukherjee, since deceased and one daughter – Ira Chatterjee, since deceased.  The Complainant claimed herself as the granddaughter of said deceased Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee claiming herself as beneficiary of the said original consumer Prafull Kumar has approached the Ld. District Forum claiming herself as ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

       Be that as it may, Prafulla Kumar installed electric connection on 23.11.1994.  It was a three phase connection with three single phase meter having contractual demand being 0.76 KW.  Those meters were installed without PP Box and all the three meters were found defective on 25.02.2013.  Accordingly, those three defective meters were replaced by good static meters with PP Box on 28.06.2013.  Therefore, average bills were raised based on connected load and consumption for two quarters in the year 2013. 

       After installation of new meter, the bill was raised and on 22.09.2014, it was showing consumption units of 1754 units for the period from September to November, 2013 amounting to Rs.13,498/-.  The OP herein initiated a Misc. Petition being MP no.1062/2013 on 27.10.2013 before the First Court of Ld. Executive Magistrate, Hooghly alleging against the Station Manager and its staff.  The said Misc. Petition was dropped on 05.12.2014 and the line was disconnected on 10.12.2014.  The OP herein, thereafter, filed one consumer complaint being CC/265/2014 before the Ld. District Forum.  On 07.01.2015, the Ld. District Forum was pleased to direct the Station Manager to reconnect the line within three days after receipt of Rs.6,000/-.  The Station Manager of WBSEDCL duly obeyed such order and reconnection was done on 24.01.2015.  After such reconnection, the bills amounting to Rs.18,185/- was sent, but the Complainant did not deposit the same.  On 16.06.2105 the CC/265/2014 was dismissed for default.  Ultimately, on 30.09.2015 the line was disconnected due to non-payment of outstanding amount of electric bill after giving due notice to the Complainant. 

       In this backdrop, on 01.06.2016, after a long delay of eight months from the date of disconnection, the instant consumer complaint had been filed.  The petition of complaint was a defective one and as such on 30.06.2016 the prayer for amendment of petition of complaint was allowed.  On that date, the Complainant moved an application with a prayer for interim relief by way of direction upon the OP/WBSEDCL to restore electric connection. 

    The main theme of the order speaks – “considering all aspects, we are of the view that the matter is to be considered with humanitarian aspects.  In the scheduled property only two lady members reside and any prudent man can presume the sufferings of those two lady members without electricity”.

      The said order passed by the Ld. District Forum goes to show that an amount of Rs.98,000/- was due and payable by the Complainant and as out of the said amount Rs.6,000/- was deposited, the OP/WBSEDCL shall restore electric connection within three days.  However, in the order there is no whisper how an and on what basis the Ld. District Forum has arrived at a decision that an amount of Rs.6,000/- out of Rs.98,000/- which is a public money would be justified enough for reconnection. 

       We are afraid that in passing the order impugned, Ld. District Forum did not consider the merit of the case but swayed by emotions.  A Consumer Forum has no authority to pass any order on equitable grounds.  There was no urgency at all in the matter because the line was disconnected on 30.09.2015 for non-payment of electric bills, the Complainant approached the Ld. District Forum on 01.06.2016.  Even on the date of filing of the complaint, the prayer for interim relief was not moved and after rectification of defects on 30.06.2016, precisely after nine months from the date of disconnection, prayer for restoration of electric connection was made and the Ld. District Forum did not consider it wise to issue notice upon the OP prior to passing any order to ascertain the actual state of affairs.

      Needless to say, justice cannot be a one way traffic.  At the time of consideration of prayer, Ld. District Forum should have considered that the bill raised by the OP/WBSEDCL is a public money and a Consumer Forum cannot be a weapon for unjust enrichment.  The Complainant, who is raising the billing dispute never approached the Central Grievance Redressal Officer (CGRO) or has not made any prayer before the Ld. District Forum for appointment of a technical person to ascertain whether the meter reading was defective or in order.

       The Ld. District Forum has not assigned any reason whatsoever under what basis, it has asked the Complainant to deposit Rs.6,000/- when according to the statement of Complainant itself in their brief note of argument that at least a sum of Rs.15,000/- and odd should have been deposited by the Complainant.  It is true that having regard to the laudable object behind the legislation of the Act to protect the interest of consumers, liberal interpretation has to be placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper technical approach.  At the same time, fair procedure is the hall mark of every legal proceeding and an affected party is entitled to be put to notice of the claim which such affected party has to meet.

       We are not unmindful to the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Act which authorises this Commission to invoke its revisional power in a limited purpose only on the ground of jurisdictional error or material irregularity.  Since there is no jurisdictional error, only question remain for adjudication whether there is any material irregularity in passing the order impugned.  If it is found that the irregularity would cause serious injustice, certainly this Commission being a Revisional Forum cannot remain a mute spectator.  In the instant case, the irregularity is so apparent that unless this Commission exercises its revisional power, then it would cause miscarriage of justice.

      In view of the above, the instant revision petition is allowed on contest.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we do not make any order as to costs.

       Consequently, the order no.03 dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum is hereby set aside.

     Considering the fact that the right to electricity is a fundamental right, the Ld. District Forum is directed to hear out the case on priority basis and fix every Monday & Thursday without granting any adjournment to either of the parties unless any exceptional situation arises and to conclude the proceeding by the end of December, 2016.

       The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 27.10.2016 positively and on that date the Complainant must file evidence on affidavit.

       We make it clear that in the meantime if any formal application is made for change of name of consumer, the Revisionist/OP shall take appropriate care subject to payment of all outstanding dues.  Subsequently, if it is found that the meter is defective, the Complainant would get the proportionate amount together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment.

        The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah for information.