Adv f or Complainant:- Mr. Subhasis Roy
Adv for OP/OPs :- Mr. Debraj Das
Date of filing of the case :02.04.2019
Date of Disposal of the case : 08.09.2022
Final Order / Judgment dtd.08.09.2022
- This is a complaint u/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 lodged by aforesaid complainant namely Sri Haren Sanyasi against the Station Manager WBSEDCL Chittashali Group Electric Supply and Secretary and Senior Manager ( HR and A) Regional Grievance Redressal Forum alleging deficiency of service.
- Complainant alleged that he is the consumer under OPs and OP is the service provider under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Case no. CC/57/2019
FACT OF THE CASE
- Fact of the case as it transpires from the petition of complaint is that Complainant applied for a new service connection before the office of OP no.1 on 22.02.2010 and OP no.1 after considering the said application asked the Complainant on 14.07.2010 to deposit Rs.350/- as quotation amount and Complainant deposited the same before the office of OP no. 1 and thereafter service connection was given to the Complainant. But OP no.1 neither gave any yellow card in the said service connection nor sent any bill to the complainant. Thereafter Complainant in writing requested to OP no.1 to provide yellow card as well as electric bill to the Complainant. On 14.07.2015, OP provided yellow card. Thereafter on 05.07.2017 Complainant received one bill form OP amounting to Rs.81,733/-. Further on 08.04.2018 OP demanded Rs.90, 871/- as arrear bill. On 12.06.2018 OP no.1 arbitrarily disconnected the service connection.
4. Complainant prayed for the following relief:-
(a). Final order directing the OPs to raise fresh bill following average consumption units.
(b)Final order directing the OPs to restore the electric service connection line.
(c) Final order directing the OPs to pay compensation amounting Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony.
W/V OF THE OP NO:- 1
5. (a) OP no.1 contests the case by filing a W/V contending inter-alia that the present complaint is not maintainable it its present form, complainant has no cause of action to file this case, complaint is misconceived, malafide and motivated one, complaint is bad for defect of parties, complaint is barred by law of limitation, Complaint is barred by principle of estoppels, waiver and acquisance.
He also denied the allegation of petition of complaint made in Para- 1 to 13.
5.(b). He admitted that complainant is a bonafide electricity consumer having consumer ID 302185116 which he got in the year 2010. Said connection was given to him as per his application dtd. 22.02.2010 and as per quotation dtd. 14.07.2010 against payment of security of Rs. 350/- which was duly paid by the complainant on
Case no. CC/57/2019
23.07.2010. He further admitted that at the time of giving the said connection or
immediately thereafter no yellow card was given to the complainant. He further admitted that on 14.07.2015 one yellow card was given to the complainant and on that time meter reading was 9759 units. It is also admitted that till 14.07.2015 no bill was claimed from the complainant. He also admitted that after 7 years he demanded Rs. 81,733/- from the complainant for the first time.
He gave an explanation that area of the complainant came under the jurisdiction of OP no.1 on 01.11.2011 by bifurcating the area of Krishnagar Road Station CCC and Bagula CCC.
He further alleged that after physical verification of the yellow card, bill was prepared for 14918 units for the period from 23.07.2010 to 20.03 .2017.
He further alleged that first bill was served to the complaint on 14.07.2017 amounting to Rs. 82,671/- . He further alleged on 07.08.2018 service connection of complainant was disconnected due to nonpayment of outstanding dues and on that day outstanding dues of the complainant was Rs.87,292/-.
Complainant being aggrieved person could have filed appeal before the Electrical Ombudsman for proper redress but he did not do the same.
Complainant is the worst consumer and he knowingly did not contact with the OP office for making the electric bill. The meter of the complainant is completely in good condition and the outstanding bills are properly calculated by the OP.
The OPs had no negligence or deficiency in service, so present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6.(a) Upon the pleadings of the complainant and OPs, the following points are framed for discussion :-
POINTS TO BE DECIDED:-
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the OPs vis- a –vis the OPs are service provider towards the complainant?
- Is the case maintainable?
- Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
- Is the case barred by the law of limitation?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
- It the complainant entitled to any other relief or reliefs?
Case no. CC/57/2019
EVIDENCE:-
7. (a) To prove the case, complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. (1 page) on 05.04.2021 in support of this case.
He also filed another affidavit- in- chief. (2 pages) in support of this case.
OP did not file any questionnaire so complainant had no occasion to file answer in respect of questionnaire.
7.(b) Complainant produced following documents.
i. Receipt dtd. 22.02.2010 regarding payment of Rs.200/- in favour of OP. (original)
ii. Receipt dtd. 23.07.2010 regarding payment of Rs.350/- . (original)
iii. Quotation dtd. 14.07.2010 relating to application no. 52100786 dtd. 22.02.2010 amounting to Rs. 350/-. (original).
iv. Copy of application filed by complainant before the OP no.1 dtd. 20.07.2015.( Xerox with receiving seal).
v. Copy of application filed by complainant before the OP no. 1. ( Xerox).
vi. Copy of Complainant filed by complainant before the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business dtd. 19.02.2018. (Xerox with receiving seal)
vii. Copy of application filed by complainant before the OP no. 1 dtd. 30.01.2018.
( Xerox)
viii. Copy of application filed by complainant before the OP no.1 dtd. 25.01.2017.
( Xerox)
ix. Copy of application filed by complainant before the OP no.1 dtd. 25.01.2017.( Xerox).
x. Notice of hearing issued by OP no.2 dtd. 13.04.2018 address to complainant. (original)
xi. letter issued by OP no.2 dtd. 21.06.2018 address to complainant. (original)
xii. letter issued by OP no. 2 dtd. 21.06.2018 address to complainant. (original)
Case no. CC/57/2019
xiii. Order sheet 12.06.2012 issued by RGRO and superintendent, Regional Grievance Redressal Forum. (original)
xiv. Electricity Consumption Bill ( original but at present illegible)(8 sheets)
xv. Electricity reading card vide 0023366. (original).
xvi. Copy of LR having khatian no. 1114 (Kri).
7.(c) He also filed Xerox copy of some documents.
7.( d) OP no.1 did not adduce any evidence in support of this case.
7.(e) Complainant did not file BNA in support of the case .
OP also did not file BNA in support of the case.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No:- 1
From the complaint petition, W/V filed by the OP no. 1, evidence adduced by the complainant and other materials on record it is evident that the complainant had applied for a new domestic service connection for his premises before the office of the OP no. 1 on 22.02.2010 and the OP no. 1 after considering the said application asked the complainant on 14.07.2010 to deposit Rs. 350/- as quotation amount and accordingly, the complainant had deposited the amount to the OP no. 1 and thereafter, the service connection was given to the complainant .
It is the contention of the complainant that OP no. 1 since after installation of the service connection to the premises of the complainant did not provide the yellow card, which was required to be used for the purpose of recording of electric units consumed by the complainant.
The complainant further contended that the OP Electricity Board did not generate any bill or sent it to the complainant.
The complainant in writing requested the OP no.1 to provide the yellow card as well as the consumption bill to the complainant. It is the first time i.e on 14.07.2015 the OP
Case no. CC/57/2019
provided the yellow card to the complainant and complainant on 05.07.2017 received one bill amounting to Rs. 81,733/- and further on 08.04.2018 OP demanded
Rs.90,871/- as arrear bill from the complainant and due to non- payment of such, the OP no. 1 on 12.06.2018 unilaterally and arbitrarily disconnected the service connection of the complainant, consequence of which the complainant and his family members had to pass miserable lives without electricity throughout the a couple of years.
In our view, the complainant is a consumer under the Ops as per the definition provided u/s 2(1) (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986, simultaneously the Ops are the service providers towards the complainant as per the definition of “service” as provided u/s 2(o) of C.P. Act 1986.
Point No:- 2
At the time of hearing contesting OP did not raise any point alleging that the case is not maintainable. Moreover on perusal of pleadings, evidence and documents of both the parties, we do not find that the case is non maintainable.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the present case is maintainable in its present form.
Point No:- 3
Complainant alleged in the complaint that cause of action of this case has arisen at first on 05.07.2017 and lasting on 13.07.2018.
On careful perusal of the pleading, evidence and documents on record we find that cause of action of this case has arisen at first on 05.07.2017 when the OP issued the 1st bill and cause of action lastly was arisen on 13.07.2018 when OP disconnected the service connection.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the complainant has cause of action to file the present case.
Point No:- 4
During hearing OP did not allege that the case is barred by limitation. Moreover on perusal of case record we find that complainant has filed this case on 02.04.2019.
Case no. CC/57/2019
Accordingly, we find that complainant filed this case within the period of 2 years from the date of first cause of action which at first has arisen on 05.07.2017.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the present case is not barred by limitation.
Point No:- 5:
This point is taken up for consideration. On perusal of the pleading of both the parties we find that it is admitted position that complainant had filed an application for new service connection before the office of OP no.1 and on that time
deposited cash of Rs. 200/- and OP no.1 issued one document vide no. B/F/09-10/ 068635. Subsequently OP no.1 issued quotation amounting to Rs.350/- vide quotation no. KGR/PS/QTN/ NSC/ 778 dtd. 14.07.2010 and directed the complainant to deposit the same. Complainant deposited the same on 23.07.2010 vide receipt no. C/07/04/808.
It is also admitted position that immediately after giving the connection OP no. l did not give yellow card in the said service connection for recording consumption.
It is also admitted position that on 14.07.2015 OP no.1 gave one yellow card and noted the initial reading as 9759. It is also admitted position that service connection has disconnected on 07.08.2018. It is also admitted position that last reading of the aforesaid meter was recorded on 03.07.2018 with the reading 16068.
In the present case Complainant alleged that at the time of giving electric connection no yellow card was given in his service connection and lastly on 14.07.2015 one yellow card was given in his service connection and initial reading was noted as 9759. It is the plea of the OP no.1 that they could not sent the bill for the service connection as Complainant did not make any such request. Such type of plea is baseless. It is the duly of the OP no.1 to give yellow card and take regular meter reading in the service connection immediately after giving the service connection but in the instant case OP no. 1 did not follow the same. Yellow card was installed on 14.07.2015. It is fact that said yellow card was given after almost 5 years.
OP no. 1 failed to give satisfactory explanation before the Commission as to why yellow card was not given and meter reading was not taken within 5 years. Such type of conduct is nothing but a clear instant of deficiency in service.
We find from the record that OP no. 1 admitted that on 13.4.2017 they raised the bill amounting to Rs.82,617/-. We find from the record that connection was given in year 2010.
Case no. CC/57/2019
Curious enough that OP no. 1 could not mentioned in his W/V on what date they gave service connection to the Complainant.
We also find from the record that yellow card was given on 14.07.2015 but first reading was taken up on 06.01.2016 and second reading was taken on 11.01.2017. OP
No. 1 could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why first reading was taken after six months from the date of providing the yellow card.
OP no. 1 could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why second reading was taken after one year from 1st reading on 11.01.2017. They are totally silent on these points. All these facts are nothing but deficiency in service.
Further, on perusal of record, we find that OP no. 1 at first claimed the consumption of electricity bill on 13.04.2017 amounting to Rs. 82,617/- OP no. 1 could not explain as to why they did not claim consumption of electricity bill before 13.04.2017, where connection was given in the year 2010.
OP no.1 took the plea that Complainant was agreed to pay their claim by way of installments, so he is bound to pay the same.
He further took the plea that Complainant did not follow the direction of higher authority of WBSEDCL.
It is quite natural that when a person fall into trouble he at first would try to negotiate the matter as per his capacity.
In the present case complainant rushed to the doors of the officials of WBSEDCL but the officers of WBSEDCL neither take any attempt to give proper justice to the Complainant nor did take proper action against the concerned employees who were on fault.
So, we are of the opinion that such type of attempt of the Complainant for negotiation of the dispute creates no bar for adjudication of the present case.
On consideration of the yellow card, vide no. 0023366 produced in this case which has been issued on behalf of OP no. 1, We find that petitioner consumed electricity during the period from 14.07.2015 to 30.7.2018 amounting to (16068-9759) units = 6309 i.e 175 units per month. The instant case has filed on 02.04.2019 i.e after disconnection of the service connection of the Complainant. Accordingly, it is clear before this Commission that Complainant did not make any payment till the disconnection of the service connection on 07.08.2018.
During hearing OP produced one tariff chart which was prepared as per order of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission dtd. 04.07.2018. As per said chart
Case no. CC/57/2019
monthly bill shall be prepared @ Rs.5.26 for first 102 unit and @ Rs.5.86 for next 78 unit plus Rs.15 as fixed charge, so monthly bill for the complainant in respect of aforesaid service connection for each month as per average charge would be Rs. 5.26x102+ Rs. 5.86x 73 + Rs. 15= Rs. 979.30.
It is the contention of the OP no.1 that total outstanding amount is Rs.87, 192/- as consumption bill for period from date of service connection of the Complainant till 07.08.2018.
Complainant produced copy of bills which he received from OP no. 1 but those documents are totally illegible, as a result it is not possible for the Commission to go though those documents. OP no.1 could easily produce the duplicate copy of bills but he did not do the same. So this Commission is in dark about the details of bills which was claimed by OP no. 1 from the Complainant.
At the time of hearing argument, Ld. Adv. for the Complainant argued that OP no. 1 is not entitled to claim any amount more than 2 years . He refers section 56 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 which reads as under.
“Sec 56” (Disconnection of supply in default of payment):- (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days’ notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer: Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under protest,-
- an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or
- the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months,
Whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.
Case no. CC/57/2019
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.
As per provision of Section 56(2) of Indian Electricity Act 2003 OPs cannot claim the bill more than 2 year on the date when he claimed the bill for the first time.
As per record OP claimed the bill at first on 05.07.2017 amounting to Rs. 81,733/-. Said bill was claimed from the date of giving service connection in the year 2010 till the date 05.07.2017. But as per the provision of Sec 56(2) of Indian Electricity Act 2003, OPs were authorized to claim monthly bill for the period from 05.07.2015.
After the said date i.e 05.07.2017 he continued his claim up to July 2018. As per record, service connection was disconnected on 07.08.2018.
So, OPs are entitled to claim consumption charge from the complainant for the period from 05.07.2015 to 06.08.2018 i.e for 37 months.
We have stated earlier that monthly consumption charge as per average basis has been calculated to Rs. 979.30 per month.
So OP will get Rs. 979.30x37= Rs. 36234=10 (Rupees thirty six thousand two hundred thirty four only) from the Complainant.
Due to aforesaid deficiency in service on the part of the OP complainant compelled to come before this Commission and the present litigation has arisen.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the complainant in entitled to cost of
Rs.3, 000/- for the present litigation.
This point is thus decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No:-6
In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that there is no necessity to award any other relief or reliefs to the Complainant in respect of this case.
All the points are disposed of Complainant is entitled to compensation and cost.
Case no. CC/57/2019
Hence, it is,
Ordered,
That the present case vide no. CC/ 57/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP no.1 and allowed ex-parte against OP no. 2 with cost of Rs. 3000/-( three thousand only) to be paid only by OP no. 1 in favour of the Complainant.
OP no. 1 is directed to give an further amount of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for his suffering without electricity for a long
period harassment, mental pain and agony due to the present dispute.
Complainant is directed to pay Rs. 36,234.10/- in the office of OP no. 1 within one month from this date and OP no. 1 or his employee are bound to accept the same and after deposit of the said amount OP no.1 is directed to restore the service connection of the Complainant within 15 days from the date of deposit of aforesaid money failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let plain copy of this final order be supplied to the parties / their Ld. Advocates / agents forthwith free of cost or send by ordinary post.
