Tripura

StateCommission

A/34/2017

The Senior Manager, Banamalipur Electrical Sub-Division - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Renubala Ghosh - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Rajashree Purkaystha

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.34.2017

 

 

1. The Senior Manager,
   Banamalipur Electrical Sub-Division,

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
Banamalipur, Agartala,
West Tripura. 

 

2. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
   Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,

Bidyut Bhavan, Bodhjung Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura.

                                                            ….    ….    ….    …. Appellant/Opposite parties.

                   Vs

1. Smt. Renu Bala Ghosh,
   W/o Late Haridas Ghosh,
   H21 HGB Road, Agartala,
   South side of Amiya Sagar Par,
   P.O. Agartala,West Tripura.

                                                  ….    ….    ….    …. Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellants:                          Miss Rajashree Purakayastha, Adv.

For the Respondent:                     Mr. Bhaskar Debroy, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 22.08.2017.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, namely, Senior Manager, Banamalipur Electrical Sub-Division and the Chairman cum Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 04 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum directed the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/TSECL) to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- and also Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation i.e. in total Rs.12,000/- to the complainant, the respondent herein. Payment is to be made within two months of the judgment, if not paid, it will carry interest @9% per annum. The appellants have also filed an application for condoning the delay of 26 days in preferring the appeal and a stay application.    

Today is fixed for hearing of the appeal.

2. The delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted.
3. Heard Miss Rajashree Purakayastha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties as well as Mr. Bhaskar Debroy, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant).
4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The complainant, Smt. Renu Bala Ghosh being a consumer of the opposite parties filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the Ld. District Forum alleging that on 30.12.2015 when a family programme was going on in her house, the staff of the opposite parties, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. disconnected the electric supply in her house as per order of the Senior Manager, Banamalipur, opposite party no.1 without any prior notice. It is also stated that before disconnection of the electricity supply, she requested the staff of the opposite parties not to disconnect the connection as the due date of making payment of bill is 31.12.2015 and she also assured that on the following day i.e. within due date, she would pay the bill, but they did not pay any heed to her request and abused with objectionable words in presence of her guests. She also tried to communicate to the opposite party no.1 over telephone, but the opposite party no.1 willfully ignored. Finding no other alternatives and considering the family prestige, she paid the bill amounting to Rs.2,404.00 including the disconnection and reconnection charge and thereafter, the connection was given at 04.30 p.m. Therefore, she prayed for compensation for such harassment and mental agony.

5. Opposite party no.1 & 2 appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant. In their written statement, it is stated that as per ledger, complainant had outstanding bill dues w.e.f. 17.08.2015 to 14.09.2015, which was due on 28.09.2015, 15.09.2015 to 12.10.2015, which was due on 27.10.2015 and 13.10.2015 to 15.11.2015, which was due on 30.11.2015. But the complainant did not pay the same in due time. So the opposite parties had given notice to the complainant as per provisions of Electricity Act, but when there was no fruitful result, the electric supply in the house of the complainant was disconnected. There is no deficiency of service.
6.  Complainant in support of her case produced copy of Electric Bill, Money Receipt of TSECL and also produced her statement on affidavit. Thereafter, she had also produced the statement on affidavit of Sri Chinmoy Saha and Sri Sushen Karmakar.
7. Opposite parties on the other hand, produced receipt copy of the bill, receipt of connection and disconnection charge, copy of ledger book. They also produced the statement on affidavit of one Goutam Chakraborty, Senior Manager, Banamalipur Electrical Sub-Division, the opposite party no.1.
8. Considering the evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
9. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the opposite parties preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. District Forum failed to consider the evidence on record and the opposite parties i.e. the appellant herein did not commit any error for disconnection of the electric supply in the house of the complainant as she did not clear the dues in time.
10. Miss Purakayastha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite parties while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that in view of the provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the opposite parties are empowered to disconnect the electricity connection in the house of a consumer for non-payment of electricity bill in time. She further submits that though the complainant submitted the statement on affidavit of three persons including her, but admittedly, except the complainant none of the witnesses appeared before the District Forum. She also submits that the complainant in her cross-examination specifically stated that she couldn’t say, only her son could say about the receipt of the bills for the month of September, October and November, 2015. She has further contended that prior to disconnection, due notice was issued, but the opposite parties failed to produce the notice before the Ld. District Forum. She finally submits that the compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum is much higher in side.
11. Per contra, Mr. Debroy, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant while supporting the impugned judgment submits that the opposite parties sent a bill dated 17.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,404/- and the due date of payment was 31.12.2015 and admittedly, the electricity connection in the house of the complainant was disconnected by the staff of the opposite parties on 30.12.2015 when there was a family function in her house without any prior notice. The complainant being helpless and in compelling circumstances paid the aforesaid bill amount on that date itself along with the disconnection charge of Rs.100/- and reconnection charge of Rs.200/- and only thereafter, the opposite parties restored the electricity connection of the complainant on that date. He further submits that even if as per the contention of the opposite parties, the complainant did not pay the electricity bill for three months, then also, the opposite parties cannot disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant without giving at least 15 days’ notice in writing to the consumer. He again submits that it is necessary for the opposite parties to mention the reason why they proposing to disconnect the supply in the notice, but admittedly, in the instant case, no notice was given to the complainant. He further submits that Ld. Counsel for the appellants herself admitted that though in the written statement of the opposite parties, they have stated that the prior notice was given to the complainant before disconnection, but no copy of the notice was submitted before the Ld. District Forum from which itself it can be presumed that no notice was given to the complainant prior to disconnection of electric supply in her house. He has also contended that from the bill dated 17.12.2015, it appears that the opposite parties in the said bill specifically mentioned the due date for payment of all previous charges for electricity and the due date was 31.12.2015, but admittedly, the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on 30.12.2015 when a function namely, ‘Anna Prashan’ ceremony of her grandson was being celebrated in her house. He finally submits that the amount of compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Ld. District Forum was not higher in side considering the harassment and mental agony of the complainant.
12. We have gone through the evidence on record as produced by the parties before the Ld. District Forum. Admittedly, the complainant submitted the statement on affidavit of three persons including her, but except her, no other witnesses appeared before the Ld. District Forum and the opposite parties also examined only one witness i.e. the opposite party no.1. We have also gone through the electricity bills submitted by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Rs.2,418/- was paid on 30.12.2015. She has also paid Rs.2,404/- as per bill dated 17.12.2015 as well as disconnection charge of Rs.100/- and reconnection charge of Rs.200/- before the due date of the bill i.e. 31.12.2015. As to know whether any prior notice was given to the complainant by the opposite parties, we have called the In-charge, Senior Manager of Banamalipur Electrical Sub-Division who has himself admitted that there is no record regarding service of notice. More so, Ld. Counsel for the appellants also fairly submits that though in the written statement it is stated that the notice was served upon the complainant before disconnection of the electricity connection, but fact remains that the opposite parties did not submit the copy of the notice before the Ld. District Forum. We are of the considered opinion that when the due date for payment of electricity bill was 31.12.2015, how the opposite parties could disconnect her electricity connection prior to that date, when she placed the bill before the staffs of the opposite parties. It is also admitted fact that on the date of disconnection of electric supply in her house, there was a family function and her electricity connection was disconnected without any fault of her. Thus, she was not only harassed, but her prestige also got down before the guests due to disruption of electricity connection without any notice on the date of her family function.
13. As per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as per Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, 7 days’ notice has to be given and the same is also mandatory, meaning thereby, the mandatory provisions of Section 24 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 was violated by the opposite parties and the disconnection of the complainant’s service connection was therefore illegal and more so, deficiency of service for which a consumer would be entitled to claim damages and compensation for such illegal disconnection.
14. We are also unable to accept the contention of Miss Purakayastha that the amount of compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum is higher in side. According to us, even if, Rs.10,000/- is given to the complainant, then also, the opposite parties cannot repair her prestige and dignity which she lost before her guests on the date of family function.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. District Forum did not commit any wrong in passing the impugned judgment.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura