Presented by:-

Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay,  President.

This case has been instituted by complainant Rajnarayan Basu against Opposite parties for restoration of electricity in respect of commercial electric connection being no.SNG-1-C-242 and consumer no.K-820771.  This case has been filed by the complainant against the Ops under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Brief fact of this case:-  The case of the complainant in bird’s eye view is that petitioner/complainant has been residing at Singur under P.S-Singur and he has been running one studio under the name and style “KAMALA PHOTO STUDIO” which was originally belonged to Shib Krishna Basu (father of the complainant).  It is alleged that after the date of the Shib Krishna basu the complainant/petitioner started to run the studio and also maintaining livelihood of his family members as there was no other earning member of his family.  It is stated that there is a commercial connection and meter in the said shop room and the petitioner used to consume electricity for commercial purpose as well as domestic purpose since the life time of his father.  It is the case of the petitioner / complainant side on account of differentiation of rate of the commercial meter the petitioner applied for separate domestic electric connection on 15.9.97 and for that reason he deposited necessary quotation money before the office of OP and thereafter the OP had sent a bill amounting to Rs.10081.44 and inspite of unwillingness to pay the said amount, the petitioner had paid the said amount in full by receipt no.006042 dated.10.10.2001 which has been filed in this case.  According to the case of the complainant side thereafter for new domestic electric connection, the prayer of the complainant was not considered and no domestic connection was installed at the house of the petitioner.  It is further alleged that the OPs thereafter stopped to receive commercial bill and the petitioner came to know that previous bills up to be deposited at a time and this matter astonished the complainant/petitioner.  It is submitted by the complainant side that in the year 2008 the opposite party-2 had sent an excessive amount of bill with compound interest and complainant was directed to pay Rs.161097/- and thereafter the complainant went to the office of OP-2 for negotiation and the OP-2 adjust the said amount and the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.1,08679/- to the office of OP-2 and the petitioner also deposited the said amount in two installments dated. 23.2.2015 and 27.3.2015 and thereafter the OPs had sent another separate bill of Rs.160000/- on 24.3.2017.  It is alleged that suddenly on 15.2.2017, OP-1 disconnected the commercial meter of the complainant /petitioner without giving any notice and as a result of which the complainant had to stop his business and facing financial hardship.

For all these reasons the complainant has instituted this case with the prayer for restoration of the electricity.

Defense Case:-  The OP-1 by filing written version has been contesting this case  and denied all material allegations leveled against the OPs and stated that the case highlighted by the complainant against the OPs is false, baseless and not maintainable.  It is stated by the OP-1 that one domestic service connection was effected vide consumer ID no.167510991 and the complainant is irregular in the matter of payment of electric bill.  It is submitted by the op-1 that the petitioner has another commercial electric service connection vide consumer no. K-820771 and consumer ID no.167422097 for running one studio.  As per case of the OP-1, both the domestic and commercial connection are separate line and the petitioner /complainant is a habitual defaulter of payment of electricity charges in respect of domestic and commercial electric connection  and as such total outstanding bill was gradually increasing.  It is alleged that there is separate rules and regulations and the complainant /petitioner is duty bound to pay the electric consumption bill regularly.  It is further alleged that due to non-payment of electric charges the total outstanding dues has reached to Rs.160000/- for commercial service connection.  It is pointed out by the Opposite parties that as the complainant /petitioner has not paid the said amount the op had sent notice for disconnection of commercial meter and finally on 15.2.2017 for non-payment of outstanding bills of Rs.160000/-.  The Opposite parties have disconnected the commercial line of the complainant.

For all these reasons the opposite parties have prayed before this district commission for dismissing this case with heavy cost.

Issues/points of consideration

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this complaint case is going to adopt the following points of consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer under the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this district Commission/Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case?
3. Is this case maintainable and is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?

Evidence on record

The complainant has filed an evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of the complaint petition and supporting the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version which is filed by the opposite parties.

The answering opposite parties also filed an evidence on affidavit which is reflecting the averments of written version and statements highlighted by the opposite parties in this case.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of both sides.

Complainant and opposite parties have filed written notes of argument. According to BNA, the evidence on affidavit and documents filed by both sides , this district commission shall have to make scrutiny of the evidence and documents on record at the time of passing final order.

Argument advanced by the ld. lawyers of the complainant and the opposite parties also have been heard by this district commission in full and in course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on the evidence and documents on record which have been produced by the parties.

DECISION WITH REASONS

The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of jurisdiction, maintainability, cause of action, limitation and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law or not, are  vital issues and so these three points of consideration  are  clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.

   Regarding these points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties even after appearance in this case have not filed any separate application challenging the point that this case is not maintainable and that this district commission has no jurisdiction to try this case and that this case is barred by limitation and that there is no cause of action.  In the written version which is filed by the opposite parties only these points have been raised.  In course of argument ld. Advocate for the opposite parties argued that this case is not maintainable as the complainant has not paid the arrear dues of Rs.160000/-.  Over this issue, this district commission after going through the material of this case record finds that the complainant is a resident of Singur and opposite parties are carrying on their business at Singur which are lying within the jurisdiction of this district commission.  Moreso, the claim of the complainant is below 20 lakhs and this factor is going to show that this district commission has its pecuniary jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction.  Moreover, under section 11 of the consumer protection act, 1986 this district commission has jurisdiction to try this case.  Over the issue of limitation it is very important to note that this case has been filed by the complainant within two years from the date of arising of the cause of action. In view of this position and according to the provisions of section 24 A of the consumer protection act, 1986 this case is not barred by limitation.  It is also important to note that according to the provisions of section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer protection act, 1986 the complainant is consumer in the eye of law.  In course of argument the opposite party pointed out that billing dispute regarding electric charges is not cunning under the jurisdiction of this district commission.  In this connection Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation LTD. and Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, has been pleased to observe that billing dispute is also maintainable in the eye of law.  Thus the above noted points of argument which is highlighted by opposite side is not acceptable.

All the above noted factors are going to depict that this case is maintainable, complainant is  a consumer under the opposite parties,  this District Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is cause of action for filing this complaint case and this case is not barred by limitation.  Thus all the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant side. 

The point of consideration No.4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point of consideration no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two pints of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.

            For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of above noted two points of consideration there is necessity of scanning the evidence on record. In this connection this district commission after going through the evidence on record finds that on the following issues there is no controversy in between the parties of this case :-

1. The father of the complainant was the owner of studio under name and style  “Kamala Photo Studio” and this shop room is situated at Singur Bazar.
2. Shib Krishna Bose father of the complainant used to run the business for maintaining his livelihood for himself and for his family members.
3. It is admitted fact that the said Shib Krishna Bose is no more in this world and after his death the complainant as son of the deceased father has been running this business.
4. It is also admitted fact that  there is a commercial electric meter in the said studio and the said meter no. is SNG-1-C-242 and  Consumer no.K-820771.
5. There is no dispute over the issue that the petitioner used to consume electric from the said meter for the commercial purpose as well as domestic purpose since the life time of his father Shib Kumar Bose.
6. It is fact that the complainant is a habitual defaulter in the matter of payment of electric charges in connection with the above noted electric connection.
7. It is admitted fact that  the said unpaid electric charges finally reached to the amount of Rs.1,60,000/-.
8. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has not paid the above noted amount and for that reason the opposite party had sent a notice of disconnection of the above noted commercial electric connection.
9. It is admitted fact that on 15.2.2017 the opposite parties finally disconnected the said commercial electric connection.

On the background of the above noted facts and circumstances it is important to note that there is no necessity passing any separate observation in respect of the above noted admitted facts as because it is settled principle of law that fact admitted need not be proved.  Section 58 of the evidence act is very important in this connection.

Now the question is whether the complainant is entitled to get restoration of the above noted electric connection or not?  In this regard this district commission shall not be out of mind of the fact that the opposite parties disconnected the above noted commercial electric connection for non-payment of electric charges.  So if the complainant pay the said electric charges of Rs.160000/- the opposites parties would not raise any objection in the matter of restoration of the above noted commercial electric connection.

In the light of the observation made above, this district commission is of the view that the complainant is to be directed to pay the unpaid arrear electric charges of Rs.160000/- in three installments –  Rs.80,000/- (1^st installment), Rs.40,000/- (2^nd installment) and Rs.40,000/- (3^rd installment) in favour of the opposite parties within three months and thereafter the opposite parties shall restore the commercial electric connection being no. SNG-1-C-242 and consumer no.K-820771.

In the result it is accordingly

ordered

that this complaint case being no. 194 of 2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against opposite parties.

Complainant is directed to pay the unpaid electric charges of Rs.160000/- in three installments –  Rs.80,000/- (1^st installment), Rs.40,000/- (2^nd installment) and Rs.40,000/- (3^rd installment)   within three months from the date of this order in favour of the opposite parties and after payment of the said arrear electric charges.  The opposite parties shall restore the electric connection  being no. SNG-1-C-242 and consumer no.K-820771.

Otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute the order as per law.

Let a copy of this judgment be handed over to the parties at free of cost.

Let this judgment be uploaded in the official website www.confonet.nic.in. in D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly.

Dictated and corrected by me.