The case record is taken up for consideration for passing order in the matter of the application filed by the Complainant of the CC case u/s 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 wherefrom this MA Case has been cropped up.
The OP of the MA case has contested the case by filing written objection.
The submission of the applicant of the instant MA Case has been heard.
The main point of contention and argument of the applicant of the MA case who is also the Complainant of the CC case No. 153 of 2021 in a nutshell is as follows.
The petitioner, reportedly a consumer of the OP WBSEDCL, claims that in spite of making payments of electricity bills regularly, a notice from the said power distribution Company was received by him, in which a demand of Rs.54,749/- was raised in respect of the shop cum factory owned by him.
In the MA petition it is claimed that the said shop cum factory is the only source of livelihood of the Complainant.
Allegedly the disconnection was made without giving any prior intimation.
In this situation the applicant of the instant MA case approaches to the Commission with a prayer for imposing direction upon the OP power distribution Company to restore the electricity connection, to restrain the OP from making any further disconnection and any other order which may be deemed fit and proper by the Commission.
OP of the MA case in their written objection points out that nowhere in the complaint petition it is mentioned by the Complainant of the CC case that the shop cum factory was his only source of livelihood and thus it is presumed that the disputed electricity connection was for commercial purpose. Resultantly the Complainant cannot be treated as a consumer.
OP further claims that the demand raised by them was lawful whereas the applicant wants to enjoy electric connection without paying the lawful bill.
Materials on records are perused.
Before drawing any inference reference should be made to the content of the complaint petition.
In the very opening sentence the Complainant admits that he is an industrial consumer.
In the second paragraph of the complaint petition the Complainant surprisingly states that ‘due to electric connection the Complainant had to face professional hazard’.
However the Complainant claims to have made several written communications to the OP and also received replies from the OP in the matter of reconnection but copies of no such communications could be filed by the Complainant.
On examination of the Complaint petition it is apparent that the Complainant being an industrial consumer, nowhere declared that the business owned by him was the only source of his livelihood. No evidence in support of his fresh claim made in the MA case that the business was the sole source of his livelihood could be filed.
The issue is supposed to be taken up for consideration in course of trial.
In view of the above this District Commission is of the opinion that the pleadings adopted by the applicant of this MA case in his corresponding complaint petition are questionable and devoid of material documents.
Hence it is ordered that the instant MA case stands dismissed. However there is no order as to costs. MA case is disposed of accordingly.
