Consumer Complaint No. 253 of 2015
Date of filing: 28-12-2015 Date of disposal: 15-12-2016.
Present :
Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal Hon’ble President,
Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha Hon’ble Member,
Smt. Silpi Majumder Hon’ble Member,
Madan Mohan Garai, S/o. Late Bama Pada Garai,
Residing at Vill.-Khanpur, P.O.-Maldanga,
District-Burdwan. Complainant.
VERSUS
- Station Manager, Manteswar Customer Care Centre,
WBSEDCL, Vill. & P.O.-Manteswar, Burdwan-713145.
- Divisional Manager (Rural), WBSEDCL, Burdwan ‘D’
Division, Power House Complex, Burdwan-713101. Opposites. Parties.
Appeared for the complainant : Ld. Advocate, Biddya Das.
Appeared for the O. P. Nos. 1 & 2 : Ld. Advocate Biswanath Nag.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for an award in favour of the complainant, directing the O.ps. to cancel the bill for Rs.24,875/- charged for non-harvesting period for three months, to issue fresh bill showing minimum charges for such period, to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of harassment and to pay Rs.3000/-as litigation cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant has been provided electricity by the O.P. No.1 for a Submersible Pump in his name being Consumer No. L807479 and Service Connection No.STW 1759. The complainant cultivates his own agricultural land and other as share cropper with the water of said Submersible Pump. Except paddy no other crops are produced in the above cultivated land. So, said Submersible Pump is kept idle for three months for the period from November, 2014 to January, 2015. The O.Ps. have claimed electricity charges by issuing bills for the non-harvesting period of said three months showing consumption of electricity. Such bills are whimsically and imaginary. The O.Ps. never take spot reading physically. The complainant repeatedly requested the O.P. No.1 to look into the matter and to make arrangement to send bills on actual meter reading but the O.P. No.1 has taken no steps. The complainant approached before the Bardhaman District Consumer Protection and Welfare Centre to interfere into the mater. The Welfare Centre as mentioned by issuing notice requested the O.Ps. to waive the charges for said idle period of three months but the O.Ps. did not pay any heed. From the bills issued for the consumption period of the month of November, 2014, shows that the electricity consumption was ‘0’ unit but in the bill for the month of December, 2014, the consumption of electricity has been shown as 1050 units and in the bill for the month of January, 2015 the electricity consumption has been shown as 5428 units and by said three bills the O.Ps. have claimed Rs.4,032/- and Rs.20,843/- total Rs.24,875/-. As in said non-harvesting period, the Submersible pump was kept idle, the O.Ps. have no right to claim Rs.24,875/- showing consumption of 1050 units and 4528 units. Those bills are liable to be cancelled and fresh bills for the above period are required to be prepared claiming minimum charges. By issuing the above three bills the O.Ps. have done unfair trade practice for which the complainant has been suffering and complainant has been forced to come before this Forum for relief. Hence this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
After service of notice upon the O.P. No. 2, he appeared in this case but ultimately he did not contest this case by filing written version and as such this case was heard ex-parte against the O.P. No.2.
The O.P. No.1 contest this case by filing written version while stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable, the case is barred by the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of C.P. Act and the claim of the complainant is false, baseless, mala fide and motivated. It has been further stated by this O.P. that the electric service connection having consumer ID No.516054723 stands in the name of the complainant Madan Mohan Garai of Village-Khanpur, P.O.-Maldanga, Dist-Burdwan, said connection was effected for the purpose of running a Submersible Pump to cultivate his land with the permission to the complainant to allow the others cultivators to cultivate their lands with the water of said Submersible Pump running through the said service connection in lien of money, the complainant has been running a business with the help of said service connection which was effected for commercial purpose also, the complainant is a habitual defaulter and as such there was outstanding dues of Rs.37,354/- upto the bill period ending with the month of October, 2013 and the complainant paid said outstanding due on 4.2.2015, subsequently due to software problem of the WBSEDCL the energy bills for the period from November, 14 to March, 15 could not be generated in time and finally said bills were raised on 19.3.2015 showing due date on 30.3.2015 and in said bills total 15862 units were shown as consumption by the complainant, as per meter reading said bills were prepared, the meter was found okay and since then, bills have been raised as per meter reading, the mater was intimated to the complainant time to time, the bill in question is quite and justified, in view of the provisions of Section-42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules and Regulation framed there under, if there is any grievance with regard to any energy bill or its payment that should be ventilated before the person or authority empowered by said act and as such this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this case and accordingly this case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
DECISION WITH REASONS
In support of his case the complainant has relied upon his evidence on affidavit submitted on 29.8.2016, the photocopies of letter dated 30.9.2015 issued to the Secretary, Bhardhaman District Consumer Protection and Welfare Centre, letter dated 20.4.2015 issued to the Bardhaman Kreta Surakha Kendra, letter dated 6.5.2015 issued to the Station Superintendent, Customer Care centre, WBSEDCL, Monteswar, Burdwan and three electric bills prepared on 19.3.2015.
From the side of the contesting O.P. No.1 no evidence has been adduced but he has relied upon the contents of his written version and written argument submitted on 6.12.2016.
We carefully perused all the documents as mentioned above and other materials on record.
In W.V. the O.P. No. 1 has claimed that the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of C.P. Act stating that the electric service connection having consumer ID No.516054723 was effected in the name of the complainant Madan Mohan Garai of Village-Khanpur, P.O.-Maldanga, Dist-Burdwan, for the purpose of running a Submersible Pump to cultivate his land and the lands of other cultivators with the water of said Submersible Pump in lien of money. In the complaint the complainant has admitted that The complainant cultivates his own agricultural land and others as share cropper with the water of said Submersible Pump. By adducing evidence on affidavit the complainant has stated that he has been supplying water from said submersible pump to the lands of other cultivators in give and take policy. No evidence has been adduced by the complainant to prove that there are other submersible pumps of other cultivators near to his submersible pump or his lands. Moreover the statement made in this connection, in complainant and the statement made in evidence on affidavit by the complainant, are not corroborated by each other. In complainant and by adducing evidence the complainant has admitted that he has been supplying water in the lands of others for the purpose of cultivation. Documents related to the installation of submersible pump and effecting service connection in question have not been submitted in this case. In complaint the complainant has not claimed that he is a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. In view of the above we are of the opinion that the electric service connection having consumer ID No.516054723 in the name of the complainant Madan Mohan Garai of Village-Khanpur, P.O.-Maldanga, Dist-Burdwan, was effected for commercial purpose and accordingly the complainant is not a consumer as per provisions of Section-2 (d) of C.P. Act 1986. As it is decided that the complainant is not a consumer, this Forum is not empowered to try this case and to give relief to the complainant.
Accordingly the case fails.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that C.C. Case No. 253 of 2015 is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 ex-parte against the rest without cost.
Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
