This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant, Bimalendu Sinha Roy.
The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner has two numbers of electricity service connections in two floors of the residential house of the petitioner at Nilima Nilaya, Satmandirtala, P.O. & P.S.-Singur, Dist.-Hooghly with consumer ID No.167409830 and 167409831 under Singur Customer Care Centre, Singur, Hooghly. The petitioner used to pay quarterly electricity bills by A/c. payee cheques drawn on different banks at Singur. The petitioner issued the cheque in favour of the WBSEDCL and WBSEDCL encashed the cheques and there was not a single instance/occasion of any dishonour of any cheque till 13th April, 2017.
That all on a sudden the complainant received a letter on 17.4.2017 from the opposite party stating that the cheque No.009075 dated 11.9.2015 for Rs.1524/- has been dishonoured by the bank of the petitioner which was issued against energy bill No.452001 845828 dated 8.9.2015 for the month of September, 2015 to November, 2015. The opposite party imposed several penalties to the petitioner and demanded payment of Rs.1789/- as against Rs.1524/- along with cheque return charge of Rs.172/- and additional bank charge of Rs.50/-. The opposite party also threatened the petitioner that if the payment is not made within 21.4.2017 then they shall reluctantly be compelled to disconnect supply of power to the premises of the complainant without making any further reference.
That the complainant contacted the concerned bank and verified about the reasons of dishonor of the cheque and the bank authority stated that the cheque in question was in order matched the signature of the issuing person etc. there was sufficient fund/balance in the said account and there was no reason of dishonouring the cheque and it was presented within the validity period of the cheque. On 20.4.2017 the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party that to cover up their own negligence and lapses they have wrongfully imposed a number of penalties to the petitioner and thereby they have destroyed the dignity, honesty and integrity of a valuable customer. In the said letter the complainant also demanded withdrawal of the penalties as imposed illegally and compensation for mental torture to a senior citizen of 76 years old.
The opposite party by another letter No.SM/SNG/E-Bill-15/261 dated 22.5.2017 in reply to the letters dated 20.4.2017 and 13.5.2017 of the complainant stated that the cheque No.009075 dated 11.9.2015 was deposited from their end on 12.9.2015 and the said cheque was dishonored by the bank and returned on 17.3.2017 mentioning the reason of return as “other reasons”. The opposite party did not mention the name of the bank, who has returned the cheque and whom they submitted the cheque on 12.9.2015.
That the opposite party while raising energy bills for the quarter June, 2017 to August, 2017 of Consumer ID No.16740981 they included an outstanding amount of Rs.1788/- along with the current bill amount of Rs.1272/-. The opposite party refused to make payment of bills through A/c. payee cheque in both the above cases and demanded payment by cash only and stated that the current bill amount of Rs.1272/- will not be accepted until and unless the outstanding amount of Rs.1788/- cleared. Naturally the petitioner was compelled to pay both the aforesaid amount of Rs.1788/- in cash on 13.6.2017 and Rs.1272/- also in cash on 15.6.2017, whereas other bill against Consumer ID No.167409830 for Rs.2500/- was paid by A/c. payee cheque No.059390 dated 8.6.2017 drawn on SBI Singur Branch. The complainant paid Rs.1788/- vide money receipt No.28995653 dated 13.6.2017 and Rs.1272/- vide money receipt No.2898073 dated 15.6.2017.
The complainant sent lawyer’s notice vide letter dated 12.9.2017 to the respondent demanding payment of Rs.95,000/- as damages and also make unqualified apology to the petitioner and to withdraw the show cause notice dated 7.4.2017 but no action was taken and those need to be implemented without any delay. But there was no fruitful result. So, finding no other alternative the complainant compelled to file this case with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.95,000/- to the complainant for compensation, to withdraw the show cause notice dated 7.4.2017 etc.
The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against them. The opposite party submits that one cheque bearing No.009075 issued by the petitioner on 11.9.2015 was not encashed and returned by the SBI, Singur Branch on 17.3.2017 and subsequently the said cheque was returned to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited two nos different cheques on 11.9.2015 for his service connection within which one No.1207407 of State Bank of India was encahsed but the other cheque being No.009075 of Central Bank of India was not encashed. So, the petitioner was well aware of the fact that all his cheques were not encashed. The penalties imposed by the WBSEDCL as per prevailing norms in the event of dishonor of the cheque for payment of electric bill the opposite party is entitled to impose penalties as per settled law of the land and there is nothing wrong. The demand of Rs.1789/- instead and in place of Rs.1524/ was rightly and lawfully claimed for which the petitioner has instituted the present case against the opposite party company. It is the system of the WBSEDCL that if one cheque is dishonored in that event there will be no scope to make payment of energy bill through cheque at least for term of one year.
The WBSEDCL deposited the alleged cheque to their banker State bank of India, Singur Branch on 14.9.2015 and after several persuasions from the side of WBSEDCL the same was returned back to WBSEDCL on 17.3.2017. Thereafter the petitioner was informed on 7.4.2017 that his cheque has been dishonored. So, it is clear that until and unless the alleged cheque returned back to the opposite party’s hand there had been no scope to intimate the petitioner about the fate of his deposited cheque. Petitioner’s allegation of intimating him about the fate of his alleged cheque after 19 months cannot be considered as deficiency of service of the WBSEDCL.
The opposite party regularly interacted with the bank for clearing some unclear cheques including the above mentioned cheque. The correspondences are as follows:-
- Meme No.SHD/ACCTS/Bank/90/388 dated 15.6.2016.
- Meme No.SHD/ACCTS/Bank/90/538 dated 26.7.2016.
- Meme No.SHD/ACCTS/Bank/90/705 dated 5.9.2016.
- Meme No.SHD/ACCTS/Bank/90/772 dated 19.9.2016.
- Meme No.SHD/ACCTS/Bank/90/901287 dated 26.7.2016.
It is to be noted that the alleged cheque ultimately returned back to the office of the opposite party mentioning the reason for return as “other reason”. The concern bank is the proper party to answer the interrogatories made by the petitioner. The bank can only answer the meaning of “other reason”. The opposite party has nothing to do in that respect.
The opposite party company has given full efforts for realization of the amount by clearing the cheque being No.009075 paid by the consumer. However consumer is well aware of the fact that the cheque was not encashed as the amount was not debited from his account. In spite of having full knowledge about the fate of his cheque the petitioner intentionally only to harass the opposite party has filed the present case. This opposite party also submits that the actual fact was intimated to the petitioner and there is no lapses/negligence on the part of the WBSEDCL. Moreover there are always persuasions from the side of the opposite party for realization of the amount from the bank but the petitioner knowing the fact that amount was not debited from his bank account he kept himself mum and silent and suddenly woke up and started in roaring that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party company and filed the present case with false allegation and venture has been taken to have unlawful economic gain by filing the case. Hence, this opposite party prayed before this forum to dismiss the case with cost.
Both sides filed evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.
ISSUES / POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Bimalendu Sinha Roy is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Bimalendu Sinha Roy is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant being the customer is consuming electricity as provided by the opposite party company and he is paying bills so the petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party and it is admitted by the opposite party Company being the service provider.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.
The opposite party herein is the Assistant Engineer & Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The opposite party Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffers from paying accumulated units at a higher rate and fails to provide powers to the consumers after taking quotation money. As a result the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy before the appropriate Forums. The inaction/negligence/discrepancies of the OP Company tantamount to deficiency of service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.
After perusing the case record it appears that the complainant being the consumer of the OP is enjoying electricity and paying quarterly bills regularly by account payee cheques drawn on different banks at Singur. That all on a sudden after lapse of about 19 months from the date of issuance of the cheque the opposite party by letter dated 7.4.2017 informed that the cheque 009075 dated 11.09.2015 for Rs.1524/- has been dishonoured by the bank of the petitioner with a remark as “others”. So the opposite party imposed several penalties and demanded payment of Rs.1789/- as against Rs.1524/- along with cheque return charge of Rs.172/- and additional charge of Rs.50/- within 21.04.2017 i.d. disconnection of power without any further reference. The opposite party also withdrawn the facility of paying electricity bills by A/C payee cheques for a period of 12 months in terms of clause 3.3.9 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulation, 2004. The complainant informed the matter vide letter dated 20.4.2017 and raised objection regarding the act of the opposite parties and assailed that if the cheque been presented to the bank of the petitioner in time and been dishonoured then it should have been returned to the petitioner within the validity period showing proper reasons. The complainant also assailed that he contacted the concerned bank and verified about the reasons of dishonor of the cheque and the bank authority stated that the cheque in question was in order matched the signature of the issuing person etc. there was sufficient fund/balance in the said account and there was no reason of dishonoring the cheque and it was presented within the validity period of the cheque. So by imposing penalties the opposite party has destroyed the dignity, honesty and integrity of a valuable customer having high social status. As such the complainant by filing the complaint petition prayed to withdraw the penalties imposed arbitrarily and compensation for mental torture of a senior citizen. The opposite party did not produce any record to show that when the cheque was deposited/ presented to the drawee bank by the banker of the respondent and when the cheque was dishonoured by the said drawee bank showing reasons thereof. According to complainant the respondent/opposite party while raising emerging bills for the quarter June, 2017 to August, 2017 of consumer ID 167409831 they included an outstanding amount of Rs.1788/- along with the current bill amount of Rs.1272/-. They refused to accept the bills through cheque and demanded payment by cash only and also stated that the current bill amount of Rs.1272/- will not be accepted until or unless the outstanding amount of Rs.1788/- is cleared. So the petitioner was compelled to pay both amounts ofRs.1788/- in cash on 13.6.2017 and Rs.1272/- in cash on 15.6.2017. Whereas other bill against consumer ID 167409830 for Rs.3500/- was paid by A/c. payee cheque No.059390 dated 8.6.2017 drawn on SBI, Singur Branch. The petitioner also averred that opposite party neither withdrawn the penalties as imposed and realized extra amount against so called dishonoured cheque No.009075 for Rs.1524/- forcefully by not accepting the payment of current bill pending payment of outstanding claim amount of Rs.1788/-.The petitioner also demanded a sum of Rs.95,000/- as damages through legal notice and also requested to withdraw the show cause notice dated 7.4.2017 but the opposite party failed to take any action in response to his letters which tantamount to deficiency in service.
The opposite party in his written notes of argument averred that the cheque bearing No.009075 issued by the petitioner on 11.9.2015 was not encashed at all and returned by the SBI Singur Branch on 17.3.2017 and subsequently the said cheque was returned to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited two numbers of different cheques on 11.9.2015 for his service connection within which the cheque No.1207407 of SBI was encahsed but the other cheque No.009075 of Central Bank of India was not encashed. So, the opposite party imposed penalties as per settled law of the land and there is nothing wrong. The demand of Rs.1789/- instead of Rs.1524/- was rightly and lawfully claimed for which the petitioner has filed the present case against the opposite party. As a matter of fact WBSEDCL deposited the cheque to their banker SBI on 14.9.2015 and after several persuasions from the side of the opposite party the same was returned back to the opposite party company on 17.3.2017. The petitioner was informed on 7.4.2017 that his cheque has been dishonoured. So, it is crystal clear that until and unless the alleged cheque is returned back to the petitioner’s hand there had been no scope to intimate the petitioner about the fate of his deposited cheque. The opposite party stated the correspondences with the bank for clearing the uncleared cheque. It is also stated by the opposite party that bank can only answer the meaning of other reasons as mentioned in the dishonoured cheque. The opposite party has nothing to make comment in this regard. The opposite party company has given full efforts for realization of the amount by clearing the cheque No.009075.
After perusing the case record, complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, written notes of argument and documents and hearing the arguments that the complainant is possessing two electric connections in his precincts being connection Nos. 167409830 & 167409831. The complainant used to pay his electric bills through account payee cheque in favor of the WBSEDCL regularly. Dispute cropped up in between the parties when the opposite party informed this complainant that the cheque being no.009075 dated 11.09.2015 of Rs.1524/- has been dishonoured by the bank of the petitioner with a remark other reasons and the said letter has been received by the petitioner/complainant on 17.04.2017 the opposite party through its letter dated 07.04.2017 informed that the cheque No.009075 dated 11.9.2015 for Rs.1524/- has been dishonoured by the bank of the petitioner which was issued against energy bill No.452001 845828 dated 8.9.2015 for the month of September,2015 to November,2015. So the opposite party imposed several penalties to the petitioner and demanded payment of Rs.1789/- as against Rs.1524/- along with cheque return charge of Rs.172/- and additional bank charge of Rs.50/-. The opposite party also threatened the petitioner that if the payment is not made within 21.4.2017 then they shall reluctantly be compelled to disconnect supply of power to the premises of the complainant without making any further reference. The opposite party also withdrew the facility of paying Electricity bills by A/c payee cheques for a period of 12 months in terms of their clause 3.3.9 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission, Regultion, 2004. It is not clear from the case record how the cheque has been dishonoured by the banker of the complainant. The disputed cheque has been returned to this complainant after a period of 19 months. The burden of proof lies on the opposite party that the cheque has been dishonored at the behest of negligence on the part of the complainant. Otherwise the complainant should not be penalished after a period of 19 months when the validity of the said cheque has already been elapsed. There is no evidence in the case record in respect of negligence on the part of the complainant for which his cheque has been dishonoured by the concerned bank. It is clear from the case record that the impugned cheque of the complainant dishonoured by the bank for unforeseen reasons. So there is no evidence to believe that the cheque of the complainant dishonoured for the cause of the complainant as such he may not be subject to pay penalty in accordance with the provisions of Indian Electricity Act. The complainant being a bonafide consumer of the opposite party used to pay electric bills through the A/c. payee cheque for a prolonged period and he being an erudite person is fully aware regarding the consequence of bounce of cheque. The complainant assailed that his cheque has been dishonoured at the behest of negligence on the part of opposite party not for his fault. It is not clear when the cheque has been placed before the clearing bank from which the opposite party used to receive the bill amounts from cheque. There is no specific ground of dishonoring the impugned cheque of this complainant for which he should be penalized by the opposite party. Thus the complainant by filing this complaint petition alleged the deficiency of service of the opposite party for returning the impugned cheque after elapsing 19 months since the date of filing the same to meet the expenditure. It is crystal clear from the above discussion that the opposite party is deficient in providing service to its complainant as such the complaint petition is deserved to be allowed with cost and compensation.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant abled to prove his case. So the Opposite Party is liable to pay any compensation to this complainant.
ORDER
Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.237/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party with a litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.487/- which the opposite party received more from the complainant as penalty charges & others for the allegation of dishonoring his cheque.
The opposite party is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.4000/- for causing mental pain and agony of this complainant.
All the payments are to be made within 45 days from the passing of this order.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
