District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Surya Sen Sarani Municipal Building, 1st Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101.
Telefax: 03522-270013
============================================================================================
Consumer Complain No.: 30/2005
Complainant Vs Opposite Party / Parties
Sri Taiful Islam 1. Station Manager, Kushmandi Group Electricity Supply,
S/o Nazrul Islam West Bengal State Electricity Board, D. Dinajpur
Vill.: Kadamdanga, PO: Mahipal 2. Assistant Engineer, Gangarampur
PS: Kushmandi, Dist D/ D. West Bengal State Electricity Board, Gangarampur, D/D
3. Assistant Divisional Manager, (P & A)
Divisional Office, West Bengal State Electricity Board
at Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur.
Present
(1) Sri S. Bhattacharyya President
(2) Sri S. K. Ghosh Member
Counsel
(1) Sri Taiful Islam Complainant
(2) Sri Sudip Chatterjee Advocate for the OPs
Order No.: 15 Dt. 13.12.2006
O R D E R
This is to consider an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter refereed to as the said Act) filed by the complainant Taiful Islam against the OPs, the concerned authorities of the W.B.S.E.B. claiming reconnection of supply of electricity.
Facts of the case, in short, is that the complainant was a consumer bearing No. 1511030 in respect of service connection No.1049/IND having Meter No.S.B.979239 and he used to consume to electric energy by paying electric bills regularly for running his own Husking Mill for commercial purpose. On 03.02.2005 at about 14.00 hours Assistant Engineer of W.B.S.E.B. conducted inspection in the premises of the Husking Mill and lodged FIR against the complainant with Kushmandi PS alleging inter alia that complainant was found to consume electricity by tapping dishonestly from the Meter No. S.B. 979239. The said Meter and connected electrical wire were also seized. A complainant was also lodged for offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Accordingly, the police case was started against the complainant and after an investigation charge sheet No. 14/2005 dt. 18.02.2005, U/s 135 of the Electricity Act was submitted. The case was tried by the Ld. Special Judge Dakshin Dinajpur bearing Special Case No. 12/05 arising out of G.R. Case No. 41/05.
Ld. Special Judge acquitted the complainant from the aforesaid charge on the technical ground that the prosecution could not produce any official Gazette or notification to the effect that the defacto complainant was a competent officer authorized by the Government according to the provision of the law.
After being acquitted from the said special case the complainant approach OPs for reconnection of supply of electricity in the premises of Husking Mill, but the OPs did not pay any heed to it. Hence the petition praying for reconnection of the supply of electricity.
OPs contested the application by filing a written version contending inter alia that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d) (ii) of the said Act inasmuch as he was a consumer of electricity for commercial purpose and his supply of electricity in respect of electric meter in question was disconnected with effect from 03.02.2005.
Next contention of the OPs as per written version is that in terms of U/s 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 no Civil Court including this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear any matter or incidence occurred should be raised before the special court formed under the Electricity Act.
Now, in view of the above contentions of the parties following questions arose for determination:-
Points for determination
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the provision of CP Act ?
- Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain any complain in respect of supply of electricity ?
- Whether the application is barred U/s 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as paid for ?
Decision with reasons:-
Points Nos. (1) to (3): These three (3) points are taken up together as they are interlaced and to avoid unnecessary repetition.
The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the OPs is that the complainant is not a consumer U/s 2 (d) (ii) of the said Act inasmuch as admittedly he was a consumer of supply of electricity for running Husking Mill for commercial purpose.
We have considered this contention of the Ld. Counsel for the OPs with a reference to the relevant provisions of the law.
We are not fully agree with the above contention of Ld. Counsel for the Ops on the ground that the supply of electricity is not doubt “goods” and purchase of “goods” for consideration for commercial purpose is excluded in the definition of “Consumer” U/s 2 (d)(ii) of the said Act. But the maintenance of electricity connection at minimum charge is a service and, even if it is for commercial purpose. So the complainant is a consumer U/s 2 (a) (i)(d)(ii) of the said Act. In this connection, reference may be made to the definition of “Service” U/s 2 (i) (o) of the said Act, where supply of electrical or other energy has been specifically included and any person purchasing or hiring such service is competent to approach the Forum for redressal on the ground of deficiency of such service. This view finds support from the decision reported in 1991 CPJ 450 (KANT) in the case of the Escon Private Ltd. Vs Karnataka Electricity Board.
Ld. Counsel for the OPs tried to impress upon this Forum that the complainant admittedly was a consumer of supply of electricity for running Husking Mill for commercial purpose. As such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain his complain.
To remove the misconception in respect of the above point we would like to refer the decision in the case of Escon Private Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board refer to above wherein it was observed that “ the complainant was buying electricity from the respondent for a commercial purpose, namely the running of his factory where they were producing Auto-spares parts and obviously selling them for profit. If this was all, the complainant would not be a consumer according to Sub Clause (i) of clause (d) of Sub Section (1) of Section2 of the said Act. But according to the Sub Clause (ii), a person who hires any services for consideration would be a consumer and Clause (o) defines “Service” as including the provision of facilities in connection with supply of electrical or other energy. In this case it has to be noticed that after 4.12.1985 no electricity has been supplied to the complainant. The charges are minimum charges, which are to be paid only for maintaining facility in connection with the supply of electrical energy. Therefore, it is clear that the bill dt. 21.09.87 is not for consideration for the sell of “goods” but for consideration of the maintenance of service line. Therefore, the complainant will be a consumer according to section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the said Act”.
In our views the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Commission will make it clear in respect of question under controversy.
Further contention of the Ld. Counsel for the OPs is that in view of the section 145 of the Electricity Act no Civil Court including this Forum has any jurisdiction to entertain any such complain.
In this connection we would like to make it clear that section 145 of the Electricity Act is limited to the matter specified U/s 126-127 of the said Act. That means, in case of any unauthorized use of electricity the competent Assessing Officer may assess the cost of unauthorized use of electricity after due inspection and the affected person may file objections against such assessment to the Appellate authority U/s 127 of the Act. So, except the aforesaid matter regarding unauthorized use of electricity the Civil Courts or the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain any complain namely, excess billing, disconnection of electricity without proper reasons etc. We would like to make it clear further that the Special Court was constituted U/s 153 of the Electricity Act only to try to offence refer to Section 135 to 139 of the said Act, i.e., only in respect of theft of electricity.
Therefore, in view of our foregoing discussion we are of the views that the instant petition for reconnection of the electricity is maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Points No. (1) to (3) accordingly disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Point No. (4) :- Admittedly complainant prayed for reconnection of the electricity which was disconnected by the OPs on 03.02.2005. In view of our foregoing discussions it has been made it clear that the complainant is entitled to get reconnection of the electricity service if he is willing to pay all dues assessed by the OPs. At the time of hearing the complainant submitted that he filed the objection petition before the Appellate authority U/s 127 of the Electricity Act against the assessment of Rs.197533/-. After depositing 1/3 of the said amount as per quotation dt. 14.11.2005 the OPs reconnected his supply of electricity in the premises in question.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid fact, it appears that the complainant has got the relief of reconnection of the electricity as prayed for in the meantime. So, no further relief is left for consideration by this Forum.
Point No. (4) is also disposed of accordingly. Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the consumer complaint is disposed of on contest.
No cost of the petition.
The case has been disposed of within about 15 months i.e. beyond the specified period of three
months as there was no Member in this Forum till September 2006. Thus the delay in disposal
of the complain.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
By Order of the Forum
I agree,
…………………………………….. ………………………………….
Member President
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat
