West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/94/2014

Sri Binod Bihari Hajra. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The AE & Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.94/2014                                                                                            Date of disposal: 21/01/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                             MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                             MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. Ghorai, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr.S.K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Binod Behari Hazra, S/o Late Bijoy Krishna Hazra, Vill.- Nimki Mohar, P.O. Mohar, P.S. 

 Sabang, Dist- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721161…………..Complainant.

                                                           Vs.

1)The AE & Station  Manager, Sabang Group Electric Supply, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., P.O.& P.S. Sabang, Dist- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721144.

2)The D.E. Kharagpur, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Kharagpur Division, Saki Bhaban, Inda, P.S. Kharagpur (Local), Dist- Paschim Medinipur, PIN- 721064..……………Ops.

          The case of the complainant Sri Binod Behari Hazra, in short, is that the electrical energy was used by the complainant for his agricultural purpose.  In this connection, it is alleged that out of conspiracy in collusion with the local farmers, a theft case demanding Rs.1,15,261/- has been initiated by the Op against the complainant.  On protest the bill of  Rs.57,653/- was paid by the complainant on 31/01/2014.  But even then the theft case remains under process.  Challenging the alleged service of the Op, the complainant moved before us with the instant complaint for relief as mentioned therein.  In this connection, Postal receipts, Advocate’s notice, Quotation dated 18/10/2012, Security Deposit receipts & Surcharge receipts are filed alongwith copies of Electricity Case No.63/2014, Final Assessment Bill dated 24/01/2014 & Usual Bill dated 15/07/2014.

           The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and the same is barred by law.  Besides, it is alleged by the Op that on 11/01/2014 while inspection, it was noticed that the complainant/consumer was unauthorisedly using electricity by means of direct hooking from the nearest L.T.O.H. bye- passing  his electric meter.  The petitioner prayed for consideration before the OP.  After hearing the theft of

energy was regularized by assessing an amount of Rs.1,15,261/-.  It is admitted by the Op that 50%

Contd…………….P/2

 

 

 

 

- ( 2 ) -

thereof was paid by the complainant on 31/01/2014.  Pending the appeal under Electricity Rules.  In view of the matter, the Op claims for the case should not lie under Consumer Protection Act and as such the case should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.      

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the Op, on false ground, moved a theft case under Electricity Act against the complainant.  That apart, the Op suspended the supply of electricity despite having huge amount of deposit made by the complainant.  So, necessary direction may be given so that the Op shall not claim further amount.

              Strong objection raised by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Op through his argument that a specific case in the matter of theft of energy has been initiated against the complainant/consumer.  There is no challenge, rather, the matter of theft proceeding has been admitted by the complainant in his case.  So, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case and thereby the case should be dismissed.

              Upon careful consideration of the entire case together with documentary evidence, it appears that a specific case under section 135 of Electricity Act 2007 is pending before the appropriate authority and on the same subject matter; the complainant is not eligible to seek relief before this Forum. 

               In view of the above, it is held and decided that the case is barred by jurisdiction and as such all the issues are decided against the complainant accordingly.

                     Hence,

                                   It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member                              Member                             President

                                                                                                                                District Forum

                                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur.