Date of Filing: 08-05-2017 Date of Final Order: 28-03-2018
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
One Tulsi Mahapragya Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Divisional Engineer (Commercial), W.B.S.E.D.C.L., and the Regional Manager, Cooch Behar Regional Office (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service.
The gist of the complaint case is that the Complainant, represented by its Director Sri Rajendra Kumar Baid, has been enjoying industrial electric power being Consumer ID No.950000203 for running his business for maintaining livelihood and he has been paying electricity charges and is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986. That in the years 2013-2016, the Complainant received electricity bills from the OPs and on scrutiny, it was found wrong tariff category bills were sent by the OPs according to their sweet will. The Complainant paid those bills and informed the matter to the concerned authority on 08.12.16 in writing and the OP sent an adjustment bill on 03.03.17. Subsequently, in April, 2017, the OPs sent a bill for the month of March, 2017 amounting to Rs.1,72,156/- wrongly. That after receiving the said bill, the Complainant found that the present meter reading was 391196 – previous meter reading 389388 = 1808 units but they charged 42728 advance units which was a question. On 13.04.17, the Complainant requested the OPs to provide reasons for excess bill and but the OPs sent a notice dated 18.04.17 asking the Complainant to pay Rs.15,292/- within 08.05.17 to avoid disconnection. After a few days, the OPs again sent a letter dated 20.04.17 to the Complainant stating that unbalance current was due to defective R&B Phase ICT due to broken CT secondary wire. This excuse was totally false as the Meter was under the control of the OPs. Ultimately, the Complainant sent a letter dated 28.04.17 to the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 received the said letter. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed this case praying for reliefs.
The O.P. No.1 did not contest the case in-spite of receipt of notice and the case has been proceeded ex-parte against it.
The OP No.2 contested the case by filing w/v on 11.08.17 contending that the case is not maintainable and there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. He has argued that the Complainant is not a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 as the Complainant took the electric connection for commercial purpose and it was denied that the Complainant is running the said business to maintain his livelihood. The Complainant is an industrial consumer of WBSEDCL and on the basis of agreement executed between the parties dated 08.11.12 for using bulk power of 82 KVA on the basis of contractual demand. It is denied that the Complainant has been paying electricity bill regularly.
After getting the complaint on 08.12.16, the OP No.2 scrutinized the matter and the Commercial Wing of the OP decided to change the tariff category for giving relief to the Complainant from existing E(BT) to B-IDIT with effect from billing month October, 2016 after taking necessary approval from the higher authority and negative adjustment of Rs.2,72,811.38/- was given to the Complainant. The total adjustment of units was made in 3 subsequent bills starting from March, 2017 for the benefit of the consumer. The adjustment bill was raised after checking of metering circuit by testing wings as the phase current was showing unbalance current during every monthly meter readings, which was apprehended initially. It may be due to improper load balancing by the Complainant but persistence of this type of characteristic i.e. unbalance current for long period. The OP No.2 decided to get the metering circuit checked by the testing wing. After getting the test result, bill for April, 2017 was preferred as per the relevant clause No.11(3) of agreement dated 08.11.2012 as well as considering clause 3.6.1 of WBERC guideline amounting to Rs. 14,127/- payable by due date and Rs.15,292/- payable after due date. The additional units adjusted are the units that the meter not recorded during the fault period. These units are based on the provisional calculation done by the OP No.2. Due to non-payment of bill within 17.04.17. a system generated notice for default in payment was issued on 18.04.17 to the Complainant requesting him to make payment of the outstanding bill of Rs.15,292/- within 08.05.17. The notice for disconnection was issued to the Complainant in compliance with Section 56 of the Electricity Act.
Moreover, the provisional bill was raised on the basis of report submitted by the Zonal Testing Unit, Siliguri, WBSEDCL and the data collected by the meter reading instrument during monthly bulk meter reading programme. That the adjustment bill raised by the OP No.2 was justified and accordingly, the OP No.2 explained regarding the re-generated bill to the Complainant in response to the Complainant’s letter dated 13.04.17and the letter dated 28.04.17. In response to this, letter dated 17.02.17 was received from the Divisional Office, Cooch Behar to the OP No.2 and a copy of the same was given to the Zonal Testing Unit, Siliguri, citing that no abnormality was observed by the technical team. However, they also observed the same problem and hence they inferred that there may be fault in Meter Internal Circuit. In response to this letter, the Op No.2 issued a letter dated 20.02.17 to the Divisional Engineer (Testing), Zonal Testing Unit, Siliguri for further checking of the Metering Circuit. Then after checking the Metering Circuit on 23.03.17, the Testing Unit detected defective R and B phase ICT due to broken city secondary wire. Thereafter, a provisional calculation was made based on the historical consumption of the consumer for the fault period since April, 2016 as per WBERC guideline which is justified and in accordance with the law.
There was no cause of action to file the case against the OP. The OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps as he hired the services of the O.Ps to run the Company due to maintains his livelihood. It was argued that the Complainant had been paying electric bills regularly and so, he is a consumer of the OPs. He draws our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.1879 of 2003 and the decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in F.A. No.690 of 2004.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP No.2 has submitted that the Complainant took electric connection from the WBSEDCL for running his Paper and Pulp Industry viz. Tulsi Mahapragya Food Products Pvt. Ltd. for commercial purpose. He brought our attention to the definition “Consumer” as defined under Section 2.1(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. He submitted that hiring of services does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose but for the purpose of this clause, commercial purpose does not include used by a person of goods bought and used by him/her and services availed by him/her exclusively for the purpose of earning his/her livelihood by means of self-employment. It was contended that the Complainant had been running an industry being a Director and hiring of electricity is not exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
In this respect, he drew our attention to the decisions reported in 2016 (3) CPR 323 SC and 2017 (2) CPR 832 NC. It was argued that the Complainant is not a consumer as he hired the services of the OPs for commercial purpose but not exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
We have gone through the Complaint, the written version and the decisions referred by the ld. Agents of both sides. On a careful consideration over the matter we are bound to abide by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred by the Ld. Agent for the Complainant. We find that the Complainant is a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant has submitted that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He argues that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP No.2 has submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer and so it is redundant whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not. On going through the materials on record, we find that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint Case.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
The Complainant has submitted that the Complainant hired the services of the OPs for running his industry to maintain his livelihood. It was urged that the Complainant received the bills from the OPs during the years 2013 to 2016 and on scrutiny, it was found that wrong tariff category bills had been sent by the OPs and the matter was reported to the authority in writing on 18.12.16. He further argued that the OPs sent an adjustment bill on 03.03.17 where payable amount was nil but in April, 2017, the OPs sent a bill dated 05.04.17 for the month of March, 2017 amounting to Rs.1,72,156/- wrongly and illegally. He argued that there were huge difference between the actual consumption and the consumption unit charged by the Ops and the claim of advance units of 42,728 was without any basis. He further argued that the Complainant sent a letter to the OPs on 13.04.17 requesting for providing reason for excess billing but the OPs sent one notice on 08.05.17 stating that in case of non-payment of Rs.15,292/- within 08.05.17, the OPs would compel to disconnect the electric line. He further argued that the OPs sent another letter dated 20.04.17 to the Complainant stating that unbalance current was due to defective R & B Phase ICT due to broken CT secondary wire but this excuse was totally false. He contended that the Complainant sent another letter dated 28.04.17 to the OP No.2 but of no effect. He submitted that the OPs disconnected the electric supply during the pendency of this case. He submitted that the Ops are liable for deficiency in service and he prayed for providing reliefs against the OPs.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP No.2 has submitted that electric connection of the Complainant had been disconnected by the OPs after service of notice of disconnection and before receiving the notice of this case. It was urged that there was an agreement between the WBSEDCL and the Complainant’s Co. dated 0811.2012 for using bulk power of 82 KVA on the basis of contractual demand and after receiving complaint on 08.12.2016, the OP No.2 scrutinized the matter and the Commercial Wing of the OP No.2 decided to change the tariff category for giving relief to the Complainant from existing E(BT) to B-IDIT with effect from billing month October, 2016 after taking necessary approval from the higher authority and necessary approval was also obtained for negative adjustment of Rs. 2,72,811.38. He further argued that after getting the test result, bill for April, 2017 was preferred as per clause No.11(3) of Agreement dated 08.11.12 and as per guidelines of WBERC amounting to Rs.14,127/- (payable by due date) and Rs.15,292/- (payable after due date) but the Complainant did not pay the bill for which system generated notice for default of payment was issued on 18.04.17 to the Complainant requesting him to make payment of outstanding bill amounting to Rs.15,292/- within 08.05.17. He further argued that the OP No.2 explained regarding the re-generated bill sent to the Complainant in response to the Complainant’s letter dated 13.04.17 and 28.04.17 and the bill was not illegal and on the contrary it was prepared on the basis of norms of WBSEDCL, WBERC and terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. He urged that the OPs have no deficiency in service and he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. He drew our attention to the decision reported in (2013) CJ 921 (SC).
We have perused the materials on record and the decision referred by the Ld. Agent for the O.P.No.2. Admittedly, the Superintending Engineer (Commercial), Regional Office, WBSEDCL, Cooch Behar replied to the letter of the Complainant dated 13.04.17 vide letter dated 20.04.17 (Annexure-F). The Complainant received the notice for disconnection dated 18.04.17 (Annexure-E) but the claimed amount of Rs.15,292/- was not paid within the stipulated period.
On going through the documents submitted by the O.P.No.2, we find that the OPs took appropriate steps for redressing the grievances of the Complainant and adjusted Rs.2,72,251/- with the bills of the Complainant. On a careful consideration, we find that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the OPs.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.2 without cost and dismissed ex-parte against the O.P. No.1 without cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
