Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant Hamidul Islam had applied for a new electricity connection before the OP i.e. W.B.S.E.D.C.L vide application No. 4001997062 and the OP issued quotation and deposited the quotation money amounting to Rs.848/-(Annexure-1) i.e. the service connection charge. Annexure-2 is the money receipt. After depositing the said amount the OP gave a domestic electric connection installing a connection meter vide meter No.L-2324754(Annexure-3). In the month of February, 2018 OP came to the house of the Complainant without giving any notice, disconnection the electric line took away the said electric meter without assessing any reason thereof. When Complainant approached to the OP for restoration the OP whimsically demanded Rs.49,926/- as bill of pilferage of energy for the period of 01.03.2017 to 28.02.2018 from the Complainant(Annexure-4) on 29.01.19, the Complainant sent Lawyer’s notice namely Ajoy Chakroborty to the OP(Annexure-5). The OP received the said notice on 31.01.19. The cause of action of the present case arose on 03.03.18 when the OP issued a pilferage bill against the Complainant and which is still thereafter on 31.01.19 when the OP after receiving the lawyer notice failed to furnish reason of his act to the Complainant and other occasions continuing. Thus, the Complainant having aggrieved approached this Commission seeking several reliefs.
The OP contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument. The OP denied the allegation levelled against them. The OP categorically denied to grant new connection to the Complainant on the reason that there is a existing electric connection in the said premises in the name of the Moslem Ali i.e. father of the Complainant and also submits that there is due to outstanding electric bill of Rs.11,451/- in the name of Moslem Ali the father of the Complainant. Annexure-A is the electric bill of the Moslem Ali. Annexure-B is the letter dated 25.04.19 issued to Complainant by this OP. On 28.02.18 the team of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. went to his house at about 13.30 and found Complainant was enjoying electricity by way of direct hooking from the L.T. line of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. by PVC cable. Then OP disconnected the electric line and prepared the seizure list and lodged written complaint. Annexure-B is the copy of seizure list and Annexure-C is the copy of FIR. After detection of theft W.B.S.E.D.C.L. prepared one provisional assessment bill amounting to Rs.49,927/- dated 03.03.18 and sent to the Complainant. The OP also submits that the total procedure of disconnection for hooking from electric line was prepared by W.B.S.E.D.C.L. as per law. So there is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP. There is no cause of action to file the present case against the OP. So, the Ld. Advocate for the OP argued that this complaint petition cannot be entertained in this Commission.
After perusing the pleadings of the parties and having undergone the argument advanced by the parties to the case, the Commission is of the view that the following points are required to be decided in this case.
Points for Determination
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer or no?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
Complainant could not prove the original document that any connection was given in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant was not given any connection as he submitted a wrong declaration. The OP further submits that any person deposits quotation money without any enquiry W.B.S.E.D.C.L. will not provide any electric connection to that person, as specified in section-43 of the Electricity Act. OP also submits that the connection could not provided to the Complainant since there is a existing electric connection in the said premises of the Complainant in the name of his father Moslem Ali and Complainant could not produce any electric bill in favour of him.
Having perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence and document furnished by both sides and on a careful consideration, we find that the Complainant is not consumer.
So, Point No.1 accordingly is decided against the Complainant.
Point Nos. 2 & 3.
The Complainant claimed that he is a bonafide consumer but the OP denied that actually he has not for given any connection. There is a separate meter in the said premises in the name of his father Moslem Ali. The Complainant was not given any connection as he submitted a wrong declaration Annexure-A of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. The OP categorically denied the status of the Complainant as consumer but the Complainant did not cross-examine the OP in this respect. The OP further disproved the claim of the Complainant wherefrom a separate electric connection in the name of the father of the Complainant Moslem Ali.
The Complainant could not prove the original document that any connection was given in the name of the Complainant. On the contrary the document filed by the Complainant also discloses that there is pilferage of electricity for a sum of Rs.49,566.72/-. A criminal case is also pending.
The OP further claimed that mere showing meter reading does not prove the status of the Complainant. He has to prove that how the Complainant got connection. The two bills submitted by the Complainant are just for payment for quotation for Rs.400/- and Rs.448/- for security deposit.
But the Complainant could not prove any document regarding new connection of electricity in the name of the Complainant.
The Xerox copy of annexures showing as meter card does not depict any meter reading or deed thereof. The reading in the meter card is also stated as zero, zero, zero, zero.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant drew the attention of the Commission.
Perused the contention of the OP in Para-8 of written version is categorically stated that the Complainant is not a consumer. It is also the defence plea that due to having a separate electric connection in the name of the father of the Complainant. Annexure-B clearly discloses that due to discrepancy it is not possible to provide connection to the Complainant.
After perusing all the annexures, it stands well proved that the Complainant was not given any electric connection as pr the specific rules and regulations provision of the OP electric company.
Annexure-D also discloses that after inspection due to allege theft of electricity case under section 135 of Electricity Act, a case was started and seizer was made as well as FIR lodged.
The OP filed the case law and relied upon it.
The OP referred some reported decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed this Judgment reported in consumer journal in the year, 2013 in page-921 where Hon’ble Supreme Court states that maintainability of consumer complaint. The Complaint against assessment made by assessing Officer under section 126. After notice of provisional assessment to person indulged in unauthorised use of electricity, final decision by an assessing Officer who is a public servant. This is a Quasi Judicial decision and does not fall within meaning of consumer dispute under section 2(1)(e) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Another decision passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in consumer journal in the year, 2021 page-26 where National Commission categorically decided that consumer complaint against assessment made under section 126 of Electricity Act is not maintainable and unauthorised use of electricity and assessment made there under could not have been challenged before Consumer Forum.
Lastly, Ld. Advocate of OP referred one decision reported in consumer journal in the year, 2022 passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi where it specifically declared that there is concurrent finding of fact that electricity connection was disconnected due to proceeding under section 135 to 140 of Electricity Act, 2003. Disconnection of electricity owing to power theft does not amount to deficiency in service.
All the aforesaid case laws are relied on.
Thus, having assessed the entire evidence in the case record and the point discussed herein above it is held that the Complainant failed to prove the case up to the hilt.
Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 & 3 are answered against the Complainant.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No.12/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order be also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
