DATE OF FILING : 16-01-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 11-02-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 03-05-2013.
Sukumar Das,
son of late Ramchandra Das,
residing at 5, Naba Kumar Nandi Lane,
P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101................................................................................... COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
The Chairman,
The CESC Ltd.,
having its registered office
at CESC House, 1, Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata – 700001.
TheDistrict Engineer,
CESC Ltd.,
having its regional office at
433/1, G.T. Road ( North ),
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 101....................................................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President-In-Charge : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
Dissecting the complaint it is collected that the present consumer dispute filed by Sukumar Das, son of late Ramchandra Das, for redressal against restoration of normal power supply which has been disconnected due to unauthorized extension of electricity to the landlord namely Sri Phulchand Shaw @ Mulchand Shaw in respect of premises no. 5, Naba Kr. Nanda Lane in connection with consumer no. 58017028033 by the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e. CESC Authority together with compensation and litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of several correspondence made through verbal or written objection by the complainant did not take any positive action neither restoration of normal power supply against consumer no. 58017028033 i.e. at the premises of Sukumar Das nor mitigate the grievances of the complainant.
Facts reveal that the complainant Shri Sukumar Das is apremises tenant under landlord Shri Mahadeb Shaw at premises no. 5, Naba Kumar Nandi Lane, has got electric connection having consumer no. 58017028033 and meter no. 4503642 under category domestic ‘G’. The said connection has been disconnected by the O.Ps. i.e., CESC Authority under Section 135 (1e) and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 with the provision of WBERC,2007 under Regulation 36 of Clause 4.2 as per record. The complainant requested the O.Ps. to restore normal power supply severally due to no fault of his own but the. O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e. CESC Authority has not take any proper action for restoration normal power supply for which he lodged this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service U/S 21)(g), 2(1)(o) and 2(1)( r ) against the o.ps. and necessary relief as prayed stated above. Hence the case.
- To counter act the complainant’s claim and alleged story the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 i.e. CESC Authority filing a written version has asserted that the complainant has no legal right to sue as consumer and Shri Sukumar Das was also not consumer at present of the O.Ps. as he was found supplying electricity to a defaulting consumer whose service connection was disconnected on pilferage ground earlier on 15-01-2008. As such act of the complainant was against the provision of Clause 4.2 of the WBERC 2007, the service line of the complainant namely Sukumar Das was consuming electric power through meter no. 4503642 was disconnected and kept special LCC seal including maintaining all the formalities for such disconnection followed by notice of inspection and written intimation of irregularities found on the spot inspection and provisional order of assessment as assessed on 04-12-02-12 and sent to the complainant by registered post dated 05-12-2012 followed by final assessemtn of order as assessed on 24-12-2012 communicated by registered post on 25-12-2012 for which this answering O.Ps. are creatures of statute and have followed the course of law and there is no deficiency of service and latches and unfair trade practice on their part against which the case may be dismissed and also not maintainable at this Forum.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant isentitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. On proper scrutiny of the argument as advanced by the agents of both parties and also reviewing the material documents as filed by the parties in brief of the details of the complaint and also written version we have searched out some of the anomalies as per complaint which are to be decided in this case to arrive at just conclusion.
- ( i )Nodoubt it is admitted fact that Sri Sukumar Das was a bonafide consumer of CESC Ltd. having deposited service connection charges and security money and executed an agreement with the licensee and paid the electric bill time to time upto the date of disconnection of power as per record.
( ii ) The secuty money so deposited by the complainant is not withdrawn / or refunded by the complainant / lincesee and the agreement so executed remain in force till date
( iii ) It is admitted fact as per record that a notice for inspection at the complainant / consumer premises was issued on 04-12-2012 by the O.Ps. followed lodging of F .I.R., provisional/ final assessment made on as per Electricity Act, 2003.
( iv ) We have also taken into consideration the following paragraph under coverage of letter ( final order of assessment ) dated 24-12-2012 of O.Ps. which runs as under :
“The representative says that there supply was given at the time of the previous unsettled amount was there F.O.A. is being passed.”
( v ) It is also taken into consideration that the O.Ps. assessed the final assessment order during the unauthorized extention of electrical energy to so-called adjacent consumer amounting to Rs. 186/- considering all the factors.
- Looking from the above followed by the documents submitted we are in the view that the inspection so carried out and thereby action taken by the O.Ps. i.e., CESC Authority was incontravention under Section 135(3) and 134(4) where it is clearly stipulated which runs as under :
“ Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out....................in the presence of adult male member occupying such premises ( U/S 135 Clause 3 (Para II ) for which the O.Ps. failed to supply / enclosed the necessary seizure list counter signed by the male member of the occupier premises alternatively presence of witnesses thereof.”
- In the light of the above findings and decisions arrived at we are of the view that the complainant has a genuine demand at the present scenario / presence position of law as elaborated and his demand requires to be fulfilled because of the facts that in the present democratic country we cannot curtail the need based requirement like electricity, water, sanitation for his livelihood under Fundamental Rights of the Constitution.
In view of the above facts and findings we are inclined to hold that the present complaint succeeds in part with condition.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 9 of 2013 ( HDF 9 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 but without cost.
The complainant is hereby directed to deposit Rs. 186/- against the final assessment order / passed by the CESC Authority in terms of letter dated 24-12-2012 within 15 days from this order.
The O.P. nos. 1& 2 CESC Ltd. be further directed to restore the normal power supply within 48 hours as per Electricity Act, 2003 after realization of the final assessment amount as directed above without interference the clause elaborated U/Ss 152 & 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
No costs both compensation and litigation are awarded.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( P. K. Chatterjee )
President –In-Charge,
C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
