The complainant Sri Ashok Kr. Das is the resident of village Sibarambati Patrapara, P.O. Balarambati, Dist. Hooghly the complainant states that complainant having one shop room at Balarambati Mouza under P.S. Singur Dist. Hooghly. In his shop room electric connection is there having S/L no. 17514, CM no.- 419059 and due to nonpayment of electricity bill the electric connection was disconnected. The complainant states that on 6.6.2009 he applied before the S.M Singur for clear clarification of electric consumption but the complainant did not get any positive answer from the S.M Singur getting no answer the complainant against on 20.8.2009 applied before the S.M Singur for clear clarification regarding his electric bill.
The complainant also states that he contacted with S.M. Singur and came to know that if the complainant clears the OSD of Rs. 2877 and next payable dues then the op will connect the electric service connection. Again on 28.8.2017 the complainant applied for electric service connection without interest, complainant states that last on 16.8.2017 the complainant applied before the SP1O and Sr. Manager (HR&A) Burdwan Zone WBSEDCL for RTI but the SP10 & Sr. Manager (HR&A) Burdwan Zone and the complainant did not get response from the SNB.
On 16.8.2017 the complainant applied before RGRO. WBSEDCL and after hearing, the RGRO ordered the complainant to pay OSD Rs. 2877 and directed to pay next LPSC amount due and on payment of entire amount for connection of electricity.
The complainant also states that he applied before the CA and FBP, Hooghly and the date of hearing is fixed on 7.11.2017 and request the Deputy Director of Consumer Affairs, Hooghly to add the RGRO as a party. But the concerned authority did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and the complainant states that though the complainant was present but the S.M. Singur was absent, again the date of hearing was fixed on 27.11.2017 but on the very next date the complainant could not present and S.M. Singur was remain absent.
The complainant also states that he came to know by a letter, 176/CA and FBP/HLY dt. 25.4.2018 due to non appearance of both the parties the matter has been dropped and directed the complainant to appear before the CDRF Hooghly and the application preferred to the Deputy Director of Consumer Affairs has not been entertained by the authority for further hearing. In protest against the complainant applied before the Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Kolkata for fair justice vide order S 3104/C and F/5C-01 2018 dt. 4.7.2018 advised the complainant to file case before the Consumer Forum, Hooghly.
The complainant also states that by a letter vide no. 1690/EN/C&F/ZC-37/15 dt. 25.5.2018 the ld. SP10 or Deputy Director admitted the complainant as a consumer and state that the complainant is entitled to file case before the District Forum.
The complainant further states and contends that according to the order of RGRO WBSEDCL the complainant paid OSD-2877 and also bound to pay LPSC of Rs. 8293 and on that very date the electric service connection is reconnected. It is regretted by the complainant that the bill sent by Singur Electricity Board where it appears that Recent Reading date 1.5.2018, billing date 15.6.2018, previous reading-1297 and present reading 1297, meter Rent per month Rs. 492.17. Totaling Rs. 13542/-.
The complainant also states that it is astonished that the complaint lodged on 2.7.2018 to S.M Singur where it appears that bill sent on 28.7.2018 of Rs. 1957. Again R.O. sent one bill and where it appears that bill dt. 28.7.2018 is totally Rs. 1957/-.Thereafter R.O. sent one bill dt. 28.7.2018 totaling to Rs. 5457/-.
The complainant also states that on 3.6.2018 the complainant asked to RGRO and DE Hooghly against the WBSEDCL regarding their failure and revengeful activities and who is actually responsible but the RGRO & DE Hooghly became speechless, on 2.7.2017 the complainant tried to know in elaboration and clear clarification in Bengali before the S.M. Singur Hooghly and till date no action taken the S.M. Singur, WBSEDCL.
The complainant states that thereafter the WBSEDCL sending separate bills which the complainant is in mental pressure and there is an apprehension of disconnection of electric service and prays before the Forum by attaching his applications otherwise the complainant suffer a irreparable loss for the wrongful act of the opposite party and the shop of the complainant remains closed causing several loss.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for non opening shop room of the complainant and hampered the business of the complainant.
The opposite party No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that the consumption bills of complainant details are provided and prepared as per prevailing rules and regulation as applicable under the Electricity Acts as applicable time to time and the complainant is well aware of the fact that his service connection was disconnected on 30.1.2009 due to huge outstanding dues was standing in his name and he did not paid the electricity consumption bills time to time as per reading of the consumption meter even the bills send to him regularly and he was a habitual defaulter to pay electric consumption bills. Therefore, the outstanding dues in respect of those bills was created as he did not paid consumption bills regularly. As a result his service line was disconnected by office of the present op.
The opposite party no. 1 also submits that the information was given to the complainant of his personal query regarding outstanding dues and opportunity for reconnection of his service line. Due to nonpayment of outstanding dues as well as reconnection charges, then the said opportunity may not be provided. The complainant is well aware of said outstanding dues since the service connection was disconnected from 30.1.2009. The L.P.S.C. was levied upon the said service connection in the name of the complainant as per rules and regulation. L.P.S.C. was paid by the complainant for reconnection of disconnected service connection as per order of R.G.R.O.
The opposite party no. 1 also submits that the consumption bill vide consumer ID No. 167419059 was send amounting to Rs. 5,206/- if the payment was completed within 25.6.2018 and the meter rent was claimed as per rules and regulation of WBERC for 98 months (1.4.2010 – 1.5.2018). The alleged amount as mentioned by the complainant in his petition as Rs. 13,542/- is not at all true and the total overdue amounts are clearly mentioned both the consumption bills which were send to the complainant. In the spot bills the amounts are divided in two parts as Rs. 1,959/- plus Rs. 3,499.86 = Rs. 5,459 in total and the printed bills which was handed over to the complainant on request from the office the same amount as Rs. 5,459/- is reflected and no deviation is there.
The opposite party no. 1 also submits that it is not possible from the office of the present op provide reply against all consumption bills related queries as because the helpdesk is there the office to clarify query of near about 50/60 number consumer in daily basis. Each consumption bills were clarified properly to the complainant each and every time he has visited the office. System Generated copy of printed consumption bills which was generated on 28.7.2018 was handed over to the complainant during his visit to office towards resolving his query. However, in response of the letter of complainant dt. 14.11.2018, one response letter from this end was issued by the op regarding to his query but could not handed over as the shop was closed for long time.
The opposite party no. 1 also submits that the service connection of the complainant was again disconnected due to nonpayment of dues, outstanding dues as per norms on and from 10.12.2018 and there is no deficiency of any service in respect of allegation made by the complainant in this complaint case and the complainant will not entitled to get any relief as per prayer of the petition and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.
- In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite party.
- Both the complainant and the opposite party are residence/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 20,000,00/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
- The complainant states that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of WBSEDCL under S.M. Singur Hooghly and the ops are the service provider and using the electricity from the op from the long time and pays charged applicable to the complainant. The complainant states that the electricity of the complainant was disconnected by the op no. 1 and the complainant challenged the bills and prayed for details how the bill was so high even after number of the letter written the op no. 1 did not supply the details of bills and compelled the complainant to go to R.G.R.O. Thereafter the R.G.R.O. Hooghly ordered the complainant to pay the original amount of consumption of Rs. 2877/- which deposition by the complainant on 4.4.2018 and ordered to op no. 1 to calculate the interest which the op calculated Rs. 8293/- on 26.4.2018 which was paid on 7.5.2018.
The complainant states and contends that all amount of electricity of the complainant was restored which clearly shows that there is no back dues to the complainant but again on 28.7.2018 bill for Rs. 1957/- was raised by the op no. 1 in which electric consumption is only 10 units. The complainant objected and on the same date op raised another bill for Rs. 5459/-. The complainant states that it is arbitrary and illegal when all the dues were paid on 7.5.2018. The meter charge for one month is Rs. 45/- but in the bill dt. 15.6.2018 meter charge has been erroneously mentioned as Rs. 492.17/- for each month. The complainant states and alleged that only to harass the complainant the op no. 1 has done this type of illegal and arbitrary act and the complainant has to suffer a great loss for wrongful acts of the op no. 1.
Finding no other alternatives the complainant compelled to file this case.
The op no. 1 humbly submits that the present case filed by the complainant is almost harassive, fabricated and not at all maintainable. The op further submits that the consumption bills of the complainant details are provided and prepared as prevailing rules and regulation as applicable under the Electricity Act as applicable time to time. The complainant is well aware of the fact that the service connection of the complainant was disconnected on 30.1.2009 due to huge outstanding dues was standing in his name. The complainant did not paid the electricity consumption bills time to time as per reading of the consumption meter even bills send regularly to the complainant. The op states that the complainant is a habitual defaulter to pay electric consumption bill. Therefore, the outstanding dues in respect of those bills were created as the complainant did not pay consumption bills regularly. As a result the service connection was disconnected by the office of the present op. The present op further states and submits that information was given to the complainant of the personal query of the complainant regarding outstanding dues and opportunity for reconnection of the service line of the complainant. Due to nonpayment of outstanding dues as well as reconnection on charges then the said opportunity may not be provided. The complainant is well aware of the said outstanding dues since the service connection was disconnected from 30.1.2009. The L.P.S.C. was levied upon the said service connection in the name of the complainant as per rules and regulations and the L.P.S.C. was paid by the complainant for reconnection of disconnected service connection as per order of R.G.R.O. The present op further submits and alleged that the consumption bill vide consumer id no. 167419059 was sent amounting to Rs. 5,206/- and if the payment is completed within 25.6.2018 and the meter rent was claimed as per rules and regulations of WBERC for 98 months (i.e. 1.4.2010-1.5.2018). The alleged amount as mentioned by the complainant in his petition as Rs. 13,542/- is not at all true. The present op contains that total over dues amounts are clearly mentioned in both the consumption bills which were sent to the complainant and the spot bills the amounts are divided in two parts as Rs. 1,959+Rs.3,499.86=Rs. 5,459/- in total and the printed bills which were handed over to the complainant on request from the office the same amount of Rs. 5,459/- is reflected and no deviation there.
The op further submits that it is not possible for the present op to provide reply against all consumption bill related queries as because the help desk is to reply to clarify query near about 50/60 consumer in daily basis. During resolving requery system generated copy printed consumption bills have been handed over to the complainant which was generated on 28.7.2018 at the time of visit to the office towards resolving query. The op also states that in response to the letter of petition dt. 14.11.2018 the op could not handed over to the complainant as the shop of the complainant closed for long time. Thereafter, the service connection was again disconnected due to nonpayment of dues by the complainant as per norms on and from 10.12.2018 and the present op submits that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the op and the complainant is not entitled to get relief as per petition and the complaint petition filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Having gone through the complaint of the complainant it is clear that the complainant has come before this ld. Forum for unreasonable bills of the op. It is also stated by the complainant in his brief notes of argument that the complainant applied for account statement but the op did not supply the same and without giving chance to the complainant to pay the amount disconnected the service connection of the complainant causing a lot of business loss to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant rushed to various office for the arbitrary illegal act on the part of the ops.
Considering the facts and circumstances this Forum is in the opinion with the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of (>) CESC ltd. vs. N.M. Banka and others and reported in 1997 (1) CHN (SC) disputed the jurisdiction of Consumer For a to adjudicate billing related disputes in accordance with Electricity Act, 2003 and WBERC (Electricity supply Code). Regulation referred to the Regional Grievance Redress at Office (R.G.R.O.) and thereafter the ld. Ombudsman herein also the complainant deviating from the said remedy filed this case before this ld. Forum.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of C.E.S.C Ltd. vs. N.M. banka and others has been pleased to hold that Specific statutory remedy provided by the Indian Electricity Act to the consumer should have not been allowed to be bypassed.
Here the instant case filed by the complainant relate to billing disputes. So, this Forum is not entitled to adjudicate the case under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Hence,
it is
ordered
that
the C.C. Case No. 3/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost and compensation.
