C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/60
COMPLAINANT : Abu Taher Sekh,
S/o Late Chamed Ali Sekh,
(Sr. Citizen & BPL Card Holder)
of Vill. Basarkhola,
P.O. Basarkhola,
P.S. Kaliganj, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Station Manager,
W.B.S.E.D.C.L.,
Debagram Group Electric Supply,
Debagram, Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 28th September, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he has one electric pump set to cultivate his land and for this OP provided him electric connection vide meter No. RSX10357(N). He further submits that up to January, 10 he paid all the bills including the last bill amounting to Rs. 1,083/-. On 11.03.10 he found that his electric meter and service connection line from the pole to meter were taken away by some unknown persons which he immediately intimated at the office of the OP wherefrom he learnt that on the basis of an allegation brought against Manarul Sekh who used to take electric line by direct hooking from the LT Line this connection was seized. That Manarul Sekhk is his son who has no landed property. The OP tactfully obtained his signature on a blank paper and thereafter prepared one provisional bill amounting to Rs. 2,54,016 in the name of the complainant by showing user’s name as Manarul Sehk on 12.03.10 and thereafter, prepared a final assessment bill amounting to Rs. 1,77,811/- on 16.03.10 in the name of Manarul Sekh. All the activities of the OP are done without the knowledge of the complainant and by this activity he has suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000/-. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. It is his specific contention that this complainant is a consumer under him having meter No. RSX10357(N). On 11.03.10 the complainant’s son Manarul Sk was found to use electricity by passing the installed meter illegally, i.e., by means of direct hooking from low extension overhead line. Then the concerned officer of the OP dehooked and then disconnected the said service line of the meter in presence of police and Manarul Sk. The OP men asked Manarul Sk to open the STW room which was under lock and key. As the key was kept at the house of Manarul Sk, so he went to his house to take the key, but did not return. Then F.I.R. was lodged on 11.03.10 at local P.S. On 15.03.10 the OP received a letter from the complainant praying for consideration of the imposed fine assessed by the OP. So no question of taking signature on a blank paper of Manarul Sk by this OP does arise. On receipt of the letter from the complainant a hearing was conducted on 16.03.10 in presence of Manarul Sk and after hearing provisional amount of bill was assessed at Rs. 1,77,811/- against the provisional bill of Rs. 2,54,016/-. A copy of the said letter was handed over to the Manarul Sk. Therefore, the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both 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 and the written version along with annexed documents filed by the parties and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that the complainant, Abu Taher Sekh was a consumer of electricity under the OP having electric connection No. B/STW/1-46 and meter No. RSX 10357(N) for running his shallow machine for cultivation purpose. It is his contention that all on a sudden the OP disconnected the meter from electric pole without intimation on the allegation of hooking of electricity from LT line by him. He has denied the allegation of hooking of electricity by him to run the shallow machine. Rather it is his submission that the OP disconnected his line on false allegation. From the documents filed by the OP we find that on inspection his staff detected about hooking of electricity by the complainant for running the shallow machine. So in presence of his son one Manarul Sekh the employees of the OP dehooked the line and seized the shallow machine of the complainant by preparing a seizure list. From the copy of the seizure list it is available that at the time of seizure, Manarul Sk was present who put his signature on the seizure list and the seizure list includes the meter of the complainant including switch board and other accessories including the hooking devices i.e., yellow coloured PVC cable 7/20 SWG, 3X20 meters and the seized articles were kept in the custody of the Station Manager, Debagram Group Electricity Supply. The seizure was prepared on 11.03.10 and thereafter the OP lodged a complaint at Kaliganj P.S. against the complainant. Prior to seizure of the articles notice was served in the name of the complainant and that notice was received by the son of the complainant Manarul Sekh. The copy of the notice is filed by the complainant also. Thereafter on 24.03.10 the complainant lodged a diary at Kaliganj P.S., inter alia, alleging that on 11.03.10 at midnight the electric connection of his meter was disconnected by the OP men. But the fact is prior to disconnection notice was served upon the complainant and the same was received by his son, Manarul Sekh and in his presence search and seizure were done and the dehooking of the line was also done by the OP men. So we find that everything was done within the knowledge of the complainant and his son. Even the complainant’s son was present at the time of hearing end provisional assessment order was passed by the OP and thereafter final assessment was done on 16.03.10 as per provision of 135 and 138 of Electricity Act and also following the rules and regulations by the WBSERC, 2007.
In view of above discussions we find that the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected by the OP due to hooking made by the complainant to run his shallow machine and prior to this disconnection including search and seizure notice was served to the complainant by the OP and in presence of the complainant’s son everything was done by the OP. Hearing was also done in presence of the son of the complainant for preparation of the final assessment of electric energy bill.
In view of this our considered view is that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. So he is not at all entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/60 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.
