West Bengal

Cooch Behar

CC/81/2013

Sri Provat Kr. Ray, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Manager, Khagrabari Group Electricity Supply & Others, - Opp.Party(s)

26 May 2014

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
B. S. Road, Cooch Behar
Ph. No.230696, 222023
 
Complaint Case No. CC/81/2013
 
1. Sri Provat Kr. Ray,
S/O Late Sushil Mohan Ray, Vill. & P.O. Khagrabari, Shib Jagna Road, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Cooch Behar, Pin Code-736101.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Station Manager, Khagrabari Group Electricity Supply & Others,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Khagrabari, Dist. Cooch Behar, PIN -736101.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 26 May 2014
Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing:  01.08.2013.                                                 Date of Final Order: 26.05.2014

           The Petitioner Shri Provat Kr. Ray (aged about 76 years since deceased), being a consumer of electricity of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Khagrabari, District- Cooch Behar, in his name, vide. service connection No.136, (Meter No.T-1419707, Consumer ID No.424037457, Installation No.1936816), filed the instant petition of complaint against the (1) Station Manager, Khagrabari Group Electricity Supply, Khagrabari, Cooch Behar, (2) Divisional Engineer, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Beguntari, Jalpaiguri, (3) Assistant Engineer, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Cooch Behar-‘D’ Division, Group Electric Supply, Cooch Behar, stating that at the time of installation of the connection a Meter Card SL No.2116024, (Consumer Category ‘Domestic’) was hanged with the Meter Board. He was consuming electricity and the meter reading was also recorded therein which speaks: Old Reading: 3629.6 dated 29-11-2011 & New Reading: 0000 dated 29-11-2011 and latest Reading: 1843 dated 29-05-2013 was rendering actual service.

            In May, 2012 he received an Electric Bill containing Bill date 13-12-2012, Invoice No.408000424416, Previous Reading 3803.00, Present Reading 4346.00, Unit Consumed 543.00 & directing him to pay Rs.1,799/- (June) & Rs.1,044/- (July & August), 2012. Even though the bill was excessive & due to ignorance he deposited Rs.1,400/- on 09-01-2013 against bill of June vide Receipt No.126400067494, Money Receipt Serial No.C-4881435. Thereafter, he deposited Rs.1,400/- on 29-01-2013 against Bill of August vide Receipt No.126400073313 & Money Receipt Serial No.C-4874752. While people started gossiping about excessive electric bills, he checked his bills and detected discrepancies, incorrect & excessive billing against him.

         Accordingly, he met the Station Manager, Khagrabari, CCC, District- Cooch Behar and complained about the bill, to which he refused to acknowledge the complaint and advised him to lodge his complaint in Complaint Book therein. On 10-07-2013 again he went to him when he along with his on duty staffs ignored him defamed him by giving threat of disconnection of his electric connection and drove him out. Thus, he felt insult, suffered mental, physical & financial loss due to excessive bills, taking opportunity of his old age deceived him and thereby rendered deficiency in service besides, unfair trade practice.    

          Hence, he filed this petition of complaint, enclosing Xerox copies of (i) Electric Bill Invoice,(ii) Money Receipt,(iii) Meter Card,(iv) one I.P.O. of Rs.100/- & (v) an Affidavit (original) under a List. He also enclosed his Letter of Authority dated 31-07-2013 to Ld. Adv. Sri Shirsendu Kumar Roy-Basunia, to conduct the case who filed the complaint on 01-08-2013 before this Forum. Based on it DF case No.81 of 2013 was registered. After admission hearing, Notice was issued upon the Opposite Parties fixing 23-08-2013 for S/R and appearance.

           On that date Ld. Advocate Sri Dhrubojyoti Karmakar, for the Opposite Party No.1, filed a petition for time to file W/V, along with an Appointment Letter dated 16-08-2013, issued by the Divisional Manager & Divisional Engineer, Cooch Behar, (appointing him) to conduct the instant case. The Ld. Adv. for the complainant also appeared on that date & no further. O.P. No.2 & 3 did not turn up in spite of receipt of ‘Notice’ and hence they were taken in Ex-Parte. 17-09-2013 was fixed for W/V by the O.Ps. On that date also time was prayed for and it was allowed fixing 07-10-2013 for filing the W/V as a must. On that date the complainant appeared through an attendance signed by Shri Utpal kr. Ray (son) without any Agentnama/Letter of Authority. The Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1 took time to file rectified bill stating that the Meter and necessary papers have been inspected and as such 31-10-2013 was fixed for filing the rectified bill as last chance, in default to pass necessary order.

         On 31-10-2013 Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray, stating him as the Authorized Agent of the complainant Shri Provat Kr. Ray filed a petition, stating that the O.P. has sent a rectified bill on 29-10-2013 which shows Present Reading: 1843, but without Previous Reading, Date of Billing 08-10-2013, while Meter Card Record shows the previous reading: 1552 date 22-02-2013 and present reading:1843 date 29-05-2013. He enclosed Xerox copies of the Memo No. KB/CCC/T-42/698 dated 05-10-2013 of the A.E. & Station Manager, Khagrabari CCC, Bill dated 08-10-2013 & Meter Card dated 29-11-11 to 29-08-13 for whch he claimed it as an incorrect bill, sent to the complainant. He also stated that he has appeared for order in this case.

          On the other hand the Ld. Adv. for the O.P. No.1 has filed his petition stating that the complaint in respect of the bill has been scrutinized and corrected bill with ‘Slab Benefit’ which has been made over to the complainant under acknowledgement and has enclosed the letter of the A.E. & Station Manager, Khagrabari CCC date 05-10-2013, with acknowledgement receipt and a bill copy. Accordingly, 25-11-2013 was fixed for hearing the petition of the complainant; but due to want of quorum, 06-12-2013 was fixed for hearing the said petition. On that date the complainant was absent without step; but surprisingly, the aforesaid Ld. Adv. Mr. D. Karmakar filed a petition for time to file W/V for the O.P.No.2 & 3, without filing any petition for restoration of their case from ex-parte hearing, (who have been taken up in Ex-Parte by Order No.2 dated 23-08-2013). Later, noted “Not Pressed”. However, 24-12-2013 was fixed for hearing the petition and on that date the said petition was heard at length. Later, as it appears the Ld. Agent of the Complainant has filed Xerox copies of his letter dated 18-12-2013 to the A.E. & Station Manager, Khagrabari, WBSEDCL & a quarterly electric bill dated 12-12-2013.

        Considering all aspects, as the matter of meter and/or connection have not been disputed; but consumer disputes relates to calculation of the claimed meter readings/amounts, the O.P.No.1 was directed to file his written version on 02-01-2014, in default to construe that there is no written version of the O.P. No.1, to file. On that date the Ld. Agent of the complainant and the Ld. Adv. of the O.P.No.1 appeared and was heard on the point of not having ‘Agentnama’ by the complainant to his son Shri Utpal Kr. Ray to which he has submitted in challenging mood, raising alarm of his debarring in some other cases where he acted as Agent, claiming him a social worker and not professional agent etc. The Ld. Adv. of the O.Ps asked him to maintain silence; but to no good. May whatever it be, the conduct of the said Ld. Agent Mr. Ray appears always challenging throughout conducting the proceedings of the Forum. The Ld. Advocates/Agents present in this Forum intervened, when he could be silenced. They also submitted that Mr. Ray use to do such behavior in other Courts Civil & Criminal at Cooch Behar and he was earlier removed from those Courts by Police and Litigants. 16-01-2014 was fixed for filing evidence by both sides, with liberty to the O.P.No.1 to file his W/V with the same as last chance.

         On 13-01-2013 said Mr.U.K.Ray again filed a put up petition along with some documents, stating serious offence by the respondents of WBSEDC Ltd to the petitioner almost alleging matters in complaints and subsequent incidents.  As there was no quorum it was kept on record. On 16-01-2014 the W/V for the O.P.No.1, represented by Mr. Tapas Kumar Sinha, A.E. & Station Manager, CCC, Khagrabari, was filed through his Ld. Adv. stating so many matters, denying all the allegations besides, claiming the complaint frivolous & vexatious and prayed for dismissal u/s 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986. On that date a detailed order was passed, over the disconnection of power supply of the complainant by the O. P. No.1 on 10-01-2014, for non-payment of dues, in the house of the Complainant.

            It appears from the case record that a dispute cropped up in between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties since a long time regarding the electric bills issued by the Opposite Party and it’s payments. As a result, the Complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum, which has been registered as DF Case No. 81/2013 and pending before this Forum in the stage of Evidence/argument. At this juncture, the Opposite Party No.1 disconnected the power supply in the premises of this Complainant (since deceased), for non-payment of dues, although a Notice has been served upon the Complainant. The complainant, in fact has not, by endorsing an ‘Agentnama’, empowered his son Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray as his constituted agent to conduct the above noted complaint case. The Complainant died leaving behind Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray & others as his legal heirs. However, it was the duty of the agent to inform this Forum regarding the death of his father and substitute the Complainant. No step was taken regarding the substitution of complainant or any prayer was filed in this regard.

         The Ld. Adv. on behalf of the O. P. No.1 submitted that it is required to pay the due bills amount for peaceful enjoyment of electricity in the premises of the deceased complainant and it is also required to change the name in respect of the power connection as no power connection can exist in the name of a deceased person as per Electricity Act, 2003. The Forum observed that after the demise of the complainant, Sri Utpal Kr. Ray, as one of the legal heirs of the deceased complainant and others are enjoying the existing electricity, being the beneficiaries & hence there is no bar on his part to be a ‘Consumer’ before this Forum as per provision, in the Sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Order was passed in exigency to connect the power supply in the premises of the Complainant with direction to pay Rs. 500/- to the O. P. No.1 and in turn O. P. No.1 must restore the pre-existing power supply in the premises of the complainant within 12hrs, on receipt of the token amount of Rs. 500/- and shall not disconnect the line till disposal of the case. It is the settled principle of law that it cannot be and should not be allowed anyone to enjoy electricity without any payment of dues and enjoy the benefit by filing a case on the point of equity, good conscience and natural justice & simultaneously, it is also not a reasonable decision on the part of the service provider to take such a drastic action of disconnection of electricity which being an emergency service, without giving a reasonable opportunity and beyond the knowledge of & without prior permission of the Ld. Forum of disconnection, when a case over the dispute of billing is pending before it and the O.P.No.1 is contesting the case. 10/02/2014 was fixed for filing evidence on affidavit by both parties.

          Thereafter, the Put up petition dated 20-01-2014 for the complainant, filed by his son on 21-01-2014, after hearing both sides on the same date,  Sri Utpal Kr. Ray as Ld. Agent for the complainant (since deceased) has filed a put up petition dated 20-01-2014 after service of copy to the Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps alleging complexity in paying considerable token amount Rs.500/- to O.P. No.1 as directed by the Ld. Forum vide Order No.11 dated 16-01-2014 and also condemning the favour shown by Ld. D.C.D.R.F. towards O.P. No.1 in this case. In the petition for the complainant has submitted so many matters in an indecent manner, almost elaborately the contents of his petition which have vehemently been objected to by the Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps and sought for legal action against the agent for the complainant by drawing contempt proceeding. The point for consideration in gist in the petition dated 20-01-2014 is whether the enclosed Memo No. KB/CCC/T-42/1257 dated 18-01-2014 suffers from any irregularity/illegality, addressed to Sri Utpal Kr. Ray, Khagrabari, Consumer ID-424037457. Sub.: Reconnection with reference to Order No.11 dated 16-01-2014 relating to Case No.DF-81/2013. His petition dated 13-01-2014, also reflects more or less same matters and termed it as criminal offence against the O.P. agitated. The complainant, father of the Ld. Agent, expired on 27-11-2013 and till date substitution of the deceased complainant, u/s 13(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has not been complied with and unless the substitution is done the Ld. Agent cannot continue to act as agent of a deceased complainant hence he deserves to be debarred from conducting the case.

         The Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Khagrabari, CCC has been directed to receive the deposit of Rs.500/- in terms of his order conveyed in his Memo No. KB/CCC/T-42/1257 dated 18-01-2014 and re-connect the service of electricity within 24 hours of such deposit. Simultaneously, the son of the deceased complainant has been directed to deposit the ordered amount of Rs.500/- forthwith as provisional payment of Rs.500/- (Rs.400/- against outstanding bill and Rs.100/- against reconnection) of the service connection in question which was disconnected on 10-01-2014 for non-payment of outstanding bill as from the fact, nature, circumstances and materials on record, at this stage we did not find any illegality/irregularity in respect of such direction though the Ld. Agent for the complainant has assailed so many matters including contemptuous version in his petition.

          We have also gone through the enclosed papers and also the contents in the petition which calls for decision in later stage at the time of Final Order in this case as most of the allegations have routed in the complaint dated 01-08-2013 in the main consumer dispute filed by the complainant Mr. Provat Kr. Ray. Both the parties have been directed to file their evidence on affidavit in terms of provision of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the date fixed and without fail.

           By a petition dated 28-01-2014, Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray prayed for inspection of  the records/documents of this case; but he inspected the records of many other cases in the office room, hours together; but without paying even a single requisite fee, left the Forum just before the closing of the office.

           On 10-02-2014 the Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1 has filed his written objection against the petition for the complainant dated 20-01-2014 filed on 21-01-2014, after supplying copy to Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray, stating so many matters specifically challenging the locus standi of Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray, after death of his father, without substitution. On that date Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray filed his 6 pages Evidence on behalf of complainant, on affidavit, enclosing 18 Xerox copies of documents mentioning the text, in his evidence. Copy of the same was also supplied to the ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1. 27-02-2014 was fixed for hearing the said Objection Petition (Written Objection) dated 10-02-2014. On that date the Ld. Agent of the complainant filed a written statement, as son, against the W.O of the O.P.No.1 dated 10-02-2014, after supplying copy to the Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1, stating so many matters, even quoting Rule 3, 10 of Order 22 of the C. P. C. and praying for dismissing the written objection of the O.P.No.1 and what not. On the other hand the O.P.No.1 filed a petition for dismissal of the case u/s 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986 after supply of copy to Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray. Accordingly, the petitions were heard at length and on 14-03-2014 passed the order, taking into consideration of the entire episode of the case and fixed 11-04-2014 for filing Evidence of the O.P.No.1 as last chance, in default to decide the case u/s 13(2)(b)(i) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and in default written argument. B.C. was directed to inform both sides as to this order to which though the Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1 endorsed ‘Seen the order’, Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray, the Ld. Agent of the complainant endorsed ‘Seen but not understood well. So, prayed for reading it before the Forum.’

             On 25-03-2014 Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray filed a put up petition referring this case and DF Case No. 110/2013, without service of copy to the O.P. and as such he was directed to supply the copy to the O.Ps. by the date fixed. Again on 27-03-2014 said Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray filed another petition dated 25-03-2014 in this case, after supplying copy to the Ld. Adv. for the O.P.No.1 who received it with strong objection. Accordingly, he was directed to reply as to his strong objection fixing to date i.e.11-04-2014. On 11-04-2014 the O.P.No.1, filed his evidence on affidavit, enclosing Xerox copies of the letter of the O.P.No.1 dated 05-10-2013 & Bill dated 08-10-2013, with an endorsement of his Ld. Adv. on the same as: ‘Sri Utpal Roy refused to receive copy.’ 24-04-2014 was fixed for argument/written argument by the respective parties. On that date Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray filed Written Argument on behalf of the complainant in 7 pages and the Ld. Adv. for the O.P. No.1 took time to file written argument and 28-04-2014 was fixed for filing the written argument as a must. However, the Ld. Adv. for the O.P. No.1 filed his written Argument in 3 pages on that date and 12-05-2014 was fixed for Final Order; but on that date due to lack of quorum today (26-05-2014) is fixed for passing Final Order.

ISSUES/POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

  1. Whether, the petition is a “Complaint” & Provat Kr. Ray is the Complainant, as a “Consumer” of the O.Ps?
  2. Whether, this Forum has financial/territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint i.e. disputes in the petition of complaint and try the same?
  3. Whether, after death of Mr. P.K. Roy, his son Sri Utpal Kr. Ray became complainant by virtue of his claiming himself the Ld. Agent of the deceased Complainant?
  4. Whether, the O.Ps have contributed negligence/deficiency in service towards the complainant?
  5. Whether, the complainant/his legal heir succeeded in proving the negligence and/or deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties jointly and/or severally by evidence?
  6. Whether, the Complainant is entitled to get compensation(s)/Relief(s) as prayed for in this case, if so, to what extent, if not why not?
  7. Whether, the case is liable to be dismissed with cost u/s 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986?
  8. Whether, Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray deserves a proceeding against him for his activities on record in this case and other cases as Ld. Agent under the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986, C.P. Rules, 1987 and C.P. Regulations, 2005?

DECISION WITH REASONS

           From the discussion herein before, it is transparent that under stringent circumstance the case is being decided, based on the evidence and materials on record and in absence of original documents which could not be get adduced/produced before the Forum either with the evidence or separately. Besides, the son of the complainant, in spite of orders on different dates, declined to rectify the matters raised in respect of authorization/substitution of the deceased complainant Provat Kr. Ray. On the other hand the O.P. also has not produced any original document but banked upon the Xerox copies signed/unsigned. May whatever it be, precluding the latches and lacuna on the part of both sides and specially in respect of not filling the Agentnama by Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray and not even filling the copy of documents in respect of death of his father, and there of succession/legal heir ship of the members including Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray, left behind, being constrained to and to avoid further complicated litigations, we have decided to pass the Final Order, based on the materials on record. The matter of taking action at least debarring Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray/dismissing the case u/s26of the C. P. Act, 1986, may be considered, analogously with case No.DF-110/2013.  

Point No.1. Whether, the petition is a “Complaint” & Provat Kr. Ray is the Complainant, as a “Consumer” of the O.Ps?

         From the discussion on this point in terms of the provision of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being a customer of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. in respect of consumption of electricity is undoubtedly a consumer and as such his complaint against the O.Ps raising some allegation/dispute against the service providing of the O.P. and it has been denied/disputed in the complaint as to the proper service/deficiency in service is invariably a complaint and as such the petition is a “Complaint” & Provat Kr. Ray is the Complainant, as a “Consumer” of the O.Ps. Non-substitution of the complainant is not identical to that of amendment of a complaint. Here what has been done by Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray may be highly condemnable for his misdeeds and misuse of proceedings but that does not reasonably speak that the other beneficiaries/legal heirs as consumer of the O.P. should suffer and escape from liability for the deficiency in service by sending incorrect electric bill to the complainant/consumer of electricity, if it is proved from record/evidence on record in the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, read with Rules, 1987 and Regulations, 2005 which are not only consumer friendly but also meant for protection of the consumer but that does not mean that once own wrong would be allowed to shift on the soldier of the other party. Consumer as defined in the act includes not only the person who hired services for consideration but also the beneficiary for whose benefit services were hired.

Point No.2. Whether, this Forum has financial/territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint i.e. disputes in the petition of complaint and try the same?

          As it appears that Rs.40,000/- has been claimed from the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. for his mental and physical harassment, Rs.30,000/- for financial loss and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost, so at valorem the value of the complaint stands at Rs.72,000/-, besides claim for direction to send Electric bills & Meter Reading in conformity and not to adopt unfair trade practice besides, the Forum to censure the WBSEDCL for disproportionate bills already sent and for which the complainant deposited I.P.O. of Rs.100/-which is within the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-. Both the complainant and the O.P. No.1 are residing and/or carrying on their business within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum and the cause of action arose within this district of Cooch Behar. Accordingly this Forum has financial/territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint i.e. disputes in the petition of complaint and try the same.  

Point No.3. Whether, after death of Mr. P.K. Roy, his son Sri Utpal Kr. Ray became complainant by virtue of his claiming himself the Ld. Agent of the deceased Complainant?

            As discussed in case DF Case No. 110/2013 therein in that case before this Forum and being decided today, in view of the petition of Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray S/O Late Provat Kr. Ray dated 10-01-2014 clearly speaks of the legal heirs and their relation with deceased that he expired at the age of 76 and reasonably his wife might be around 70 years. Sri Utpal Kr. Ray is the only son besides three others daughters of whom probably the 2nd and youngest daughters are married and the eldest daughter is unmarried. It is fact that the substitution has not been prayed in terms of the settled principle of law and as provided in Order XXII of the First Schedule to the C.P. Code, 1908, in terms of section of the C.P. Act, 1986, and though there appears same irregularity, as he is one of the beneficiaries/consumers of the electricity. Sri Utpal Kr. Ray has been substituted as the complainant in place of deceased Provat Kr. Ray with direction to rectify the same on his affidavit and produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from other legal heirs, as after death of the complainant the authorization stands invalid. Reasonably, he is competent to conduct his case in person, accordingly.  21-03-2014 was fixed for compliance with the direction and filing evidence by both sides, along with relevant documents in original incorporating in the evidence on affidavit for marking those as exhibits and further order but in vain. Whatsoever it may be, for the act of the agent in this case son of the deceased complainant, the rest beneficiaries should not suffer. Hence, in our considered view, after death of Mr. P.K. Roy, at this stage in the stringent, deplorable and circumstance in our considered view, his son Sri Utpal Kr. Ray should be treated as complainant with exemplary cost for disobeying and violating the Forums order besides the simple provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986, by virtue of his claiming himself the Ld. Agent of the deceased Complainant or otherwise by virtue of inheritance of enjoyment of the benefit as one of the beneficiaries and obviously a complainant. The matter of non-compliance with the order of the Forum is to be decided accordingly but that does not debar him from being a complainant.

Point No.4. Whether, the O.Ps have contributed negligence/deficiency in service towards the complainant?

           From the discussion herein before, the admitted fact that the O.Ps are jointly and/or severally has contributed their negligence by errors/omissions by sending different electric bills at different time for the same period and relevant correspondence intimating the complainant either with the matters of reply to the petition of the complainant/his son and/or explanation in respect of the bills, may whatever be the reason vide Bills Exhibits-2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11 & 19; Letters and Correspondences vide Exhibits-8, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17; Money Receipts vide Exhibits-5, 5/1, 5/2, 7, 18, 18/1 and the vital Exhibits-1, 1/1 relating to the Meter Card in scrutiny/scanning we find that the O.P. No.1, contributed enormous irregularity in preparation of the bill intimation to the complainant showing the reason which are nothing but a plea/lame excuse and not acceptable to reason person of normal prudence and hence, we find the concerned A.E & S.M i.e. O.P. No.1 liable for deficiency and/or negligence on the part of the O.P. towards the complainant so far we find from the record of the O.Ps who has sent revised/corrected electric bills with their letter explaining the ground for excessive bills due to rise of cost of electric units etc. We are not satisfied we such explanation for the O.Ps, as because the admitted fact need not be proved and the explanation whatsoever it may be cannot help the O.P. No.1 from the liability. There is no whisper/iota of evidence or even allegation against the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 either in the petition of complaint/any subsequent petition for the complainant and/or in the evidence adduced for the complainant. The O.P. No.1 has not stated that the bill was erroneous due to typographical cause but claimed otherwise as to the incorrect bill, even the matter has been rectified and intimation given by sending fresh bills/letters that does not immune the O.Ps from their liability due to negligence resulting to deficiency in service. Accordingly, we find deficiency on the part of the O.ps in this case and they are liable for reasonable compensation and not as prayed in the petition of complaint treating the Forum as a jackpot or lottery centre. The concerned O.Ps are, accordingly liable to compensate the complainant for such deficiency in service and resultant harassment agony and mental pain. However, inspite of receipt of the Notice from the Ld. Forum the O.P. No.2 & 3 either ignored the Notice or the Forum, known to them but not even sent any intimation to the Forum as a reply against the same Notice. We find that during proceedings even there would be some material brought to light against those O.P. No.2 & 3, so we may reasonably presumed that they have been implicated in this case with ulterior motive and as such, such act on the part of the complainant by misusing the man power of this Forum for service by process server to O.P. No.3 as well as money for sending Notice by post to the O.P. No.2.

         Simultaneously, the complainant is also liable for disobeying the rules and regulation of the Electricity Act and violation of the Forums order for which he deserves sweet able punitive cost payable to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

        In this case due to over act on the part of the O.Ps concerned without following the proper procedural matters had suddenly disconnected the emergency energy service and for which a petition dated of Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray for restoring the electric connection was entertain in this case and by an order on payment of Rs.500/- the electric connection was restored. The original complainant Mr. Provat Kr. Ray expired on 27-11-2013 and the legal heirs/beneficiaries are enjoying electricity without making any payment for such consumption of energy in one hand on the pretext of pendency of this case which is neither feasible nor permissible in the eye of law. The WBSEDCL, as it appears is static in respect of taking any legal action as provided in the Electricity Act, 2003, Rules & Regulations there under thereby loosing the genuine payable amount. The O.P. has not even filed a petition stating that the electric connection was restored on the basis of a prayer but no separate misc-case was filed/initiated. According to law even if the main case is decided the misc-case as per civil procedure court may remain pending. In the constraint circumstance at this stage we have no alternative but to keep the matter pending in respect of restorated electricity as it is subject to finalization of the actual amount due to the complainant in respect of arrear bills, obviously with direction to the complainant to sit with the O.P. No.1 at the earliest with the originals of his paid bills for making payment of the arrear amount of bills, up to date within 60 days from the date of Final Order in this case, in default allowing the WBSEDCL authority to take steps as per law and as provided in the Electricity Act, Rules and Regulations there under, as such a whims/intentional withholding of payments of electric charges should neither be indulged nor encouraged in the interest of natural justice.    

Point No.5. Whether, the complainant/his legal heir succeeded in proving the negligence and/or deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties jointly and/or severally by evidence?

       From the discussion, besides discussion at length and decision with reason in point No.4 & 5, it is transparent that the complainant/his legal heir not only miserably failed in proving the negligence and/or deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties jointly and/or severally by evidence, on the contrary by his admitted fact he has proved the case for dismissal of the case as frivolous or vexatious complaint and it has come on record in writing, resulting to which the complainant is liable to pay reasonable cost even to the extent of Rs.10,000/- to the O.Ps (O.P. No.1).

Point No.6. Whether, the Complainant is entitled to get compensation(s)/Relief(s) as prayed for in this case, if so, to what existent if not why not?

         As discussed herein above, it is needless to repeat the matters to decide this point and without any hesitation we may reasonably come to a decision that the Complainant is not at all entitled to get any compensation(s)/Relief(s) as prayed for or otherwise. On the contrary the petition is liable for dismissal with exemplary punitive cost as provided in section 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986 in this case. 

Point No.7. Whether, the case is liable to be dismissed with cost u/s 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986?

          In view of decision in column No.7 we find that the case is not liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986, in limine, with exemplary cost.

Point No.8. Whether, Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray deserves a proceeding against him for his activities on record in this case and other cases as Ld. Agent under the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986, C.P. Rules, 1987 and C.P. Regulations, 2005?

            Considering all aspects we find that in the interest of sanctity, integrity, harmony in between the Bar & the Bench, smooth running of this Forum to avoid unnecessary litigation, derogation of prestige & save the poor, simple, ignorant litigants and to guard itself from the touts and busybodies in the grab of power of attorney holders or authorized agents in the proceedings before it, Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray deserves suitable legal action as provided in 16(6) of the C.P. Regulations, 2005 in accordance with & on due process of Law. Besides, in Regulation 16(7) it has been enshrined that: “While a Consumer Forum may permit an authorized agent to appear before it, but authorized agent shall not be one who has used this as profession:  Provided this sub-regulation shall not apply in case of advocates.” Further, according to Regulation 16(8) of the aforesaid Regulations, it has been stated that: “An authorized agent may be debarred from appearing before a Consumer Forum if he is found guilty of misconduct or any other mal practice at any time.”

           Finally on scrutiny of the materials on record specially, the correspondence in between the parties and with this Forum together with the documents filed particularly the arrear Bill dated 13-12-2012 (Enclosure-1) being Invoice No.408000424416 for the period 30-08-2012 to 26-11-2012, consumed units 543 which costs Rs.3,953/- after the due dates, whereas in the same bill amount for June, 2012 of Rs.1,799/-, July, 2012 of Rs.1,044/- and August, 2012 of Rs.1,044/- within due date excluding the special rebate total amount claimed Rs.3,859/-. From (Enclosure No.2) Money Receipts Serial Nos. (i) B-0592425 of Rs.1,400/- dated 09-01-2013, (ii) C-4881435 of Rs.1,070/- dated 18-01-2013 and (iii) C-4874752 of Rs.1,400/- dated 29-01-2013. Therefore from the document it can transparently be presumed that the bill was raised on 13-12-2012 for the consumption period of electricity 30-08-2012 to 26-11-2012 but the demand has been made for the months June, July & August, 2012.

          The second  arrear Bill dated 08-10-2013 being Invoice No.100000477049 for the period 16-11-2013 to 30-05-2013, consumed units 1843 and 36 which costs Rs.2,583/-, after the due dates, whereas in the same bill amount for March, 2012 of Re.1/-, April, 2012 Rs.0.00/- and May, 2012 Rs.2,514/- within due date excluding the special rebate total amount claimed Rs.2,326/-. But no Money Receipts as to payment of the said bill have been produced either as a Xerox copy/original before this Forum.

            The third arrear Bill dated 12-12-2013 being Invoice No.484000005768 for the period 31-05-2013 to 30-11-2013, consumed units 882 which costs Rs.7,674/- after the due dates, whereas in the same bill amount for June, 2012 of Rs.4,234/-, July, 2012 Rs.1,693/- and August, 2012 Rs.1,693/- within due date excluding the special rebate total amount claimed Rs.7,531/-. But no Money Receipts as to payment of the said bill have been produced either as a Xerox copy/original before this Forum.

          The fourth arrear Bill dated 03-12-2012 being Invoice No.400004312977 for the period 16-11-2011 to 30-08-2012, consumed units 210 which costs Rs.1,122/-, after the due dates, whereas in the same bill amount for March, 2012 of Rs.364/-, April, 2012 Rs.367/- and May, 2012 Rs.367/- within due date excluding the special rebate total amount claimed Rs.1,088/-. But no Money Receipts as to payment of the said bill have been produced either as a Xerox copy/original before this Forum.

          The fifth arrear Bill dated 15-03-2013 (Document-6) being Invoice No.402001902109 for the period 26-11-2012 to 28-02-2013, consumed units 400 which costs Rs.2,294/- after the due dates, whereas in the same bill amount for September, 2012 of Rs.756/-, October, 2012 of Rs.756/- and November, 2012 of Rs.756/- within due date excluding the special rebate total amount claimed Rs.2,229/-. From (Document-7) Money Receipt Serial No.99779 of Rs.2,230/- dated 27-03-2013, this bill paid in full.

         Subsequently, a Notice u/s 56(i) of the Electricity Act, 2003 given by Officer In-charge, Khagrabari CCC, WBSEDCL, Cooch Behar dated 19-12-2013 to Provat Kr. Ray for recovering such outstanding dues amounting to Rs.2,541/- for the billing period of May, 2012 and the Notice transpires that payment to be made within 09-01-2014 and a further Rs.100/- has been charged for disconnection and reconnection (Document-5).

          Further, a Notice u/s 56(i) of the Electricity Act, 2003 given by Officer In-charge, Khagrabari CCC, WBSEDCL, Cooch Behar dated 26-12-2013 to Provat Kr. Ray for recovering such outstanding dues amounting to Rs.4,252/- for the billing period of June, 2012 and the Notice transpires that payment to be made within 16-01-2014 and Rs.100/- has been charged for disconnection and reconnection (Document-7).                      

            Accordingly, at this stage, we may without any hesitation, as it appears from the materials on record, we may find Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray guilty of misconduct, leaving aside as to his malpractice, and debar him from appearing before this District Forum, Cooch Behar w. e. f. 27-05-2014, in all other cases where Mr. Ray had been appearing as agent, under the provision of the Regulation 16(8) of the C.P. Regulations, 2005. However, this Order shall not affect the Final Order in the cases instituted by his father i.e. the present case and the DF Case No.110/2013, initiated by his deceased father during his life time before this Forum. The 2 instant cases shall be decided on it’s merit, unaffected of the Order of debarring Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray, from appearance in any case before this Forum as an agent/representative/non-advocate save and except of his own case.

            The signed Xerox copies of documents filed with the evidence for the complainant and other documents in the C.R. which are deemed necessary to adjudicate the case are marked Exhibits for identification and discussion on the salient points.

Document.1. Meter Card in respect of Meter No.T-1419707 for the period 29-11-2011 to 29-08-2013, dated 29-11-2011 to 29-05-2013, Marked Exhibit-1, 1/1.

Document.2. Quarterly Electric Bill containing reading date 16-11-2011 to 30-08-2012, Billing date 03-12-2012, Marked Exhibit-2.

Document.3. Quarterly Electric Bill containing reading date 30-08-2012 to 26-11-2012, Billing date 13-12-2012, Marked Exhibit-3

                      Document.4. Tariff as per WBERC order dated 30-12-2011, marked Exhibit-4.

Document.5. Three Money Receipts Serial No. (i) B-0592425 date 09-01-2013 of Rs.1,400/-, (ii) C-4881435 date18-01-2013 of Rs.1,070/- & (iii) C-4874752 date 29-01-2013 of Rs.1,400/-, Marked Exhibits-5, 5/1 & 5/2.

Document.6. Quarterly Electric Bill containing reading date 26-11-2012 to 28-02-2012, Billing date 15-03-2013, Marked Exhibit-6.

Document.7. Money Receipt No.99779 date 27-03-2013 of Rs.2,230/- Billing period Sept., 2012 to Nov., 2012.

Document.8.  Memo No. KB/CCC/T-42/1196 dated 08-01-2014 from A.E & S.M, Khagrabari CCC to Provat Kr. Ray, Marked Exhibit-8.

Document.9. Quarterly Electric Bill containing reading date 16-11-2011 to 31-05-2013, Billing date 08-10-2013, Marked Exhibit-9.

Document.10. Unsigned Notice of Officer-In-charge, Khagrabari CCC dated 19-12-2013 to Provat Kr. Roy for payment of bill of Rs.2,541/- for May, 2012 and Rs.100/- within 09-01-2014, Marked Exhibit-10.

Document.11. Notice of Officer-In-charge, Khagrabari CCC dated 26-12-2013 to Provat Kr. Roy for payment of bill of Rs.4,252/- (June, 2012 Rs.1,711/- + May, 2012 Rs.2,541/-) and Rs.100/- within 16-01-2014, Marked Exhibit-11.

Document.12. Letter of Utpal Kr. Ray to the A.E & S.M, Khagrabari CCC dated 07-01-2014 said to be reply to Notice of due bill, May, 2012, Marked Exhibit-12.

Document.13. Letter of Utpal Kr. Ray dated 10-01-2014 to I.C., Kotwali P.S. for action against A.E & S.M, Khagrabari CCC vide G.D. entry 572 dated 10-01-2014, Marked Exhibit-13.

Document.14. Letter of Utpal Kr. Ray to the A.E & S.M, Khagrabari CCC dated 17-01-2014 in respect of direction to deposit Rs.500/-, Marked Exhibit-14.

                      Document.15. Order No.11 dated 16-01-2014 of D.C.D.R.C., Cob., Marked Exhibit-15.

Document.16. Memo No. KB/CCC/T-42/1257 dated 18-01-2014 from A.E & S.M, Khagrabari CCC to Provat Kr. Ray, Re: Reconnection, Marked Exhibit-16.

Document.17. Letter of Utpal Kr. Ray dated 24-01-2014 to A.E & S.M, Khagrabari CCC, Marked Exhibit-17.

Document.18. Two Money Receipts Serial No. (i) B-0406735 date 25-01-2014 of Rs.400/- & (ii) B-0406736 date 25-01-2014 of Rs.100/-, Marked Exhibits-18, 18/1.

          Besides, (a) The Arrear Bill dated 12-12-2013 being Invoice No.484000005768 for the period 31-05-2013 to 30-11-2013, consumed units 882 which costs Rs.7,674/- after the due dates, Marrked Exhibit-19, (b) Letter of A.E & S.M, Khagrabari CCC dated 05-10-2013 Re: Billing dispute, Marked Exhibit-20. 

ORDER

         Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same be succeed in part and Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray son of the deceased complainant do get Rs.2,500/-, as an award towards compensation for deficiency in service by the concerned O. P. No.1 i.e. the Assistant Engineer & Station Manager, Khagrabari, CCC, WBSEDCL,who is directed to pay the amount within 60 days from this date of order to Mr.Ray, in default he shall pay at the rate of Rs.10/-for each day’s delay, if any, by depositing the same in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal”. 

         Further, it is ordered that Mr. Utpal Kr. Ray shall make, up to date payment of the entire dues, to the O.P. No.1, within the said period after getting the same ascertained, by sitting together, based on the records, failure of which he also shall pay at the rate of Rs.10/-for each day’s delay, if any, by depositing the same in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal”.

          He is debarred from appearing before this Forum as Agent/Representative/Non-Advocate or otherwise, onwards in any case, other than in his own case. 

         The complainant shall also pay Rs.500/- within said period for non-compliance of the orders during the proceedings and assailing various contemptuous baseless allegations and misbehavior in the Ld. Forum, failure of which proceedings u/s 25/27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 would follow.

          Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned  party/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.

Dictated and corrected by me.

 

                  President                                                          President

   District Consumer Disputes                             District Consumer Disputes                       

Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                       Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                Member                                                              Member

  District Consumer Disputes                              District Consumer Disputes                       

Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                       Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.