C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/62
COMPLAINANT : Bani Adhikary
Sarak Para, Narkel Bagan Lane,
P.O. Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Station Manager,
Ranaghat Branch,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
9, Vivekananda Sarani,
P.O. & P.S. Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 15th November, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she enjoys electricity through electric connection No. 10425 and consumer No. A014040 which stands in the name of her late husband. It is her further case that in January, 07 the OP Electricity Authority sent a bill from which it is available that extra 300 units were added in that bill and accordingly, the bill amount was also paid. Her son, one Partha met the office and requested to correct that bill, but to no effect. Thereafter, one application was submitted on her behalf requesting to prepare a correct bill. Thereafter in April, 07 again a bill was sent to her in which 300 units extra was found and the bill was paid accordingly. As the office did not correct the bill amount on the request of her son, so on 11.04.07 one application was filed for regeneration of the said bill, but to no effect. Rather in May, 07 a notice was sent for disconnection of the meter. After perusing the regeneration letter, the OP authority stopped from disconnecting the electric connection of the meter. In September of that year again a bill was sent in which 450 units was charged extra and against that bill objection was made by her, but to no effect. At her constant request, the OP changed the meter on 24.10.07. At the pressure of the OP she was compelled to deposit the bill for the month of January, 07 and April, 2007 along with penalty. Those bills were paid by her on 03.01.08 and 12.01.08 respectively. At that time the Station Manager of the OP told that the extra units would be adjusted with the subsequent bills, but actually that was not done by him. After a long time in August, 08 the OP sent bill after regeneration and adjusted the units which ended up to 2009. Again in January, 2010 the OP sent a bill for 339 units though actually those units were not consumed by her. So it is her specific case that actually she consumed 56 units in the bill of January, 07, 41 units in April, 07 and 284 units in January, 2010, but the office of the OP collected money for more than those units consumed by her which is gross irregularity on the part of the OP. As the OP did not rectify the excess bills for the month of January, 07 and also April, 07, January, 08 and January, 10, so having no other alternative she has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP WBSEDCL has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the present case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his specific contention that this complainant is not at all a consumer under him as the meter still exists in the name of her deceased husband and the complainant has not taken any initiative to file any application before this OP for changing the said name of the deceased husband and to continue the same meter in her name. So this complainant is illegally enjoying the meter standing in the name of a deceased person. Therefore, she has no authority to file the present complaint as she is not at all a consumer under this OP. Besides this it is his submission also that the allegations made in the petition of complaint are not correct at all. It is false to say that the OP added more than 300 units with the meter reading of January, 07 and with the bill of April, 07 also. No excess amount was charged by him in those bills. All the bills were duly prepared by the authority against which payment was also done by the complainant. So no question of charging the extra units by the OP does arise as alleged. No extra charge was demanded by him or any surcharge was paid by the complainant. He also submits that in January, 2010 no extra unit of 339 was sent along with the bill. Therefore, this complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Is the complainant a consumer under the OP?
Point No.2: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.3: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with annexed documents filed by the complainant and the written version filed by the OP and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties it is available on record that the present disputed meter bearing consumer No. A014040 and connection No. 10425 previously stood in the name of one Pinaki Adhikary. From the petition of complaint it is available that said Pinaki Adhikary expired some years back who was her late husband, but still now the electric connection runs in his name. From the record it is available that this complainant, Bina Adhikary never prayed before the OP by filing any application to change the meter in her name. So it is still on record that admittedly the disputed meter still now stands in the name of late Pinaki Adhikary, who was the husband of the present complainant. Ld. lawyer for the OP has argued before us that as the meter stands in the name of the late Pinaki Adhikary, so this complainant is not at all a consumer under the OP. At the same time he also submits that as she is not a consumer under him, so she has no authority to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him. Now the question is whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP or not. We have already discussed that from the petition of complainant it is available to us that the disputed meter connection No. 10425 originally belonged to late Pinaki Adhikary, who expired some years back. That Pinaki Adkhikary was the husband of the present complainant. It is also available on record that electric connection still now stands in the name of the Pinaki Adhikary which is also available from the electric bills filed by the complainant. All the electric bills were issued in the name of Pinaki Adhikary. There is no document to show that the complainant filed any application before the OP intimating the death of her husband or changing her name in the place of Pinaki Adhikary. In this connection ld. lawyer for the OP has cited a ruling from AIR 2009 (NOC) 2313 (NCC) where the Hon'ble National Commission has decided that, “Consumer Protection Act Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – Definition – In a connection of electricity supply for non-payment of dues – Connection was in the name of father of petitioner – Petitioner cannot be termed as consumer – Petitioner directed to deposit reconnection charges and to apply for issue of connection in his name.”
On a careful perusal of the ruling of the Hon'ble National Commission we find that in the instant case this electric connection stood in the name of late Pinaki Adhikary, who was the husband of the complainant. The complainant never applied for changing or transferring the connection in her name after changing the name of her late husband.
So in view of the decision of Hon'ble National Commission our considered view is that the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act. The complainant has to apply for transferring the electric connection in her name after deleting the name of her late husband. Thereafter, she should file this case which she has not done at all. So in view of our above finding we do also hold that this complainant has no legal authority to file this case and to pray for any relief without changing the meter in her name.
Considering the allegation made by the complainant and after perusal of the bills and other documents, we find that the OP charged extra 300 units in the bill for the period of January, 07 to March, 07 though actually the complainant enjoyed only 41 units. It is also available from the bill dtd. 04.01.07 though the complainant enjoyed 56 units, 300 units was charged extra in that bill. In the bill dtd. January, 10 we find nothing excess unit was charged by the OP as alleged by the complainant. So considering all the documents it is available to us that only in the bill of January, 07 300 units instead of 56 units and in the bill of April, 07 300 units extra instead of 41 units were charged by the OP. She has no allegation against the other bills. Ld. lawyer for the OP submits that the complainant has no authority to challenge those two bills for January, 07 and April, 07 as the case is not filed within the period 2 years since issue of those bills. Besides this as per submission of the complainant those two bills were paid by her. Section 24A of the CP Act, provides that “The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.” In the instant case nothing is stated by the complainant why she filed the case after a lapse of two years, though her allegation is against the electric bills supplied by the OP for January, 07 and April, 07. From the documents it is clear to us that there is no anomaly in the other bills supplied by the OP to the complainant thereafter. So the complaint was filed praying for reliefs, the cause of action of which arose more than 2 years ago. So the complaint is barred by limitation also as per the provision of Section 24A of the CP Act.
In view of the above discussions and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties, it is our considered view that the complainant has not become able to prove her case. So she is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/62 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
