Consumer Complaint No.112 of 2015
Date of filing: 08.5.2015 Date of disposal: 24.8.2016
Complainant: Shri Indrajit Ghosh, S/o. Radhika Ranjan Ghosh, House No. 2/2, Mahua Bye Lane – 2, Rabindrapally, A-Block, Durgapur -1, PS: Cokeoven.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Manager (Cash) T & D, The Durgapur Project Limited, Office of Electrical and Transmission & Distribution, Durgapur -2, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, PS: Cokeoven.
2. Sri P. S. Pal, Dy. General Manager (F&A)/Special Officer (F&A), The Durgapur Project Limited (A Govt. of West Bengal Enterprise), Dr. B. C. Roy Avenue, Durgapur – 1, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, PS: Cokeoven.
3. Managing Director, The Durgapur Project Limited, Administrative Building, 1st Floor, Durgapur – 1, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, PS: Cokeoven.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Sanjay Kumar Guha & Susanta Kumar Nandy.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): Ld. Advocate, Sourin Das.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S, 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs have claimed and received an excess amount during effecting electric connection at his premises.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that he applied for getting new electric connection at his premises on 29.05.2013 to the OP under domestic category and load prayed for 3.61 KVA by submitting filled up prescribed form. The OP issued a demand notice dated 12.06.2013 directing to deposit a sum of Rs.8, 880=00. The Complainant deposited the said amount before the OP-1 on 18.06.2013 and the OP-1 issued money receipt against such payment. The OPs supplied him the consumer number as 044489. The Complainant having no knowledge of rules, regulation and terms as envisaged in the demand notice paid the amount as per the demand notice due to urgent need of electric connection. Subsequently, the Complainant found that the OPs have claimed some amount under the category of ‘charge against sale of power’, which is bar as per WBERC guideline. So the OP-1 in connivance with the other OPs intentionally having full knowledge have misled and misguided the Complainant and received a sum of Rs.7,220=00 in respect of charge against sale of power. The Complainant on several occasions verbally requested the OPs to refund the amount which was received illegally and lastly made written correspondence on 08.10.2014, but the OPs have refused to return the same. The OPs issued one letter on 27.11.2014 stating that amount was received legally. Thereafter the Complainant lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Regional Office, Durgapur, but no fruitful result yielded and they advised him to file a complaint before the Ld. Forum. Having no alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.7, 220=00 which was taken arbitrarily from him along with compensation to the tune of Rs.20, 000=00 to him due to mental agony, harassment and physical sufferings. The Complainant has also prayed for litigation cost of Rs.3, 000=00 from the OPs.
The OP-2 has contested the complaint by filing written version contending that in reference to the letter of the Complainant under RTI Act this OP had explained that the charges against sale of power has been realized inadvertently under code no-56110 instead of code no-52601 as consumer’s contribution which is Rs.2,000=00 per KVA load applied from new consumers, as well as, from the existing consumer applying for enhancement of load demanded and the load of consumer is 3.61 KVA X Rs.2,000=00 = Rs.7,200=00. The said charge was realized as per the WBERC Regulation no-53 dated 02.04.2013. Under the column 4.2.1 it is enumerated that ‘the cost of extended portion of the common facilities, including the cost of electrical plants, LT or HT lines emanating from the sub-station distributing mains, etc shall be borne by a new consumer/consumers in proportion to his/their respective connected loads. Those new consumers who might be served by the same extended portion of the common facilities subsequently, shall also bear the cost of the aforesaid extended facilities in proportion to their respective connected loads till the costs incurred by the licensee in extending the said facilities are fully recouped.’ Therefore the charge was realized to recover the investment as was made for installation of a new transformer of 250KVA at Rabindrapally, Block-A, Durgapur-713201, District-Burdwan, West Bengal. The OP has already replied the above-mentioned through the letter date 26.11.2014. At the time of filing the application before the OP the Complainant declared that he shall abide by all provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules/Regulations/orders/statutory notifications made under the said Act by amended from time to time and therefore this Complainant is legally obligated to go by the terms of the contract and the OP is legally levied the charges which is not adjustable with the energy bills. Thus the Complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint but with oblique motive he has filed the instant complaint with a view to grab some money through an illegal manner. According to the OP-2 this complaint should be dismissed with exemplary cost.
The OP-1 and 3 have also filed written version to contest the complaint separately contending same and identical contention with the written version of the OP-2. So the written versions of the OP-1 and 3 need not be mentioned. Both the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit. The OP-1, 2 and 3 have adduced evidence on affidavit. The Complainant has challenged the evidences of the OPs by way of filing questionnaire and the OP-2 have relied the same jointly and the OP-1 also filed the reply on affidavit. The OPs have also challenged the evidence of the Complainant by putting questionnaire and the Complainant has accordingly submitted his reply on affidavit. Both parties have filed several papers and documents in support of their respective contentions.
We have carefully perused the record, documents filed by the parties as available in the record along with submitted by them by way of ‘firisty’ during argument and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that there are some admitted facts i.e. the Complainant applied for new domestic electric connection for 3.61 KVA through the prescribed form on 29.05.2013, the OP-1 upon receipt of the form issued demand notice in favour of the Complainant on 12.06.2013 directing him to deposit a sum of Rs.8,880=00, the Complainant deposited the said amount before the OP-1 on 18.06.2013, money receipt issued by the OP-1 in his favour, consumer number was given to the Complainant, in the said demand notice the OP-1 claimed a sum of Rs.7,220=00 towards the charge against sale of power, the OP-1 has no authority to claim any amount towards the charge of sale of power as there is no provision in the WBERC guideline, after getting knowledge about such claim under illegal category the Complainant requested the OP-1 verbally to refund him the said amount, as no result has been yielded then the Complainant made written correspondence on 08.10.2014, the OP-2 replied the same on 27.11.2014 stating that the amount was claimed legally but due to inadvertence instead of code no- 52601 it was claimed under the code no- 56110, though the claim was made towards charges against sale of power, but it will be consumer’s contribution, in the said reply the OP-2 had corroborate such claim explaining the matter in detail, the reply of the OP-2 could satisfy the Complainant and hence this complaint is initiated by the Complainant praying for certain reliefs along with refund of the amount of Rs.7,220=00.
It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that the OPs cannot claim any amount arbitrarily going beyond their rules, regulations, terms and conditions. In support of his contention the Complainant has referred to The Kolkata Gazette, dated 02.04.2013 wherein under the column no-4.1 it is enumerated that ‘where distribution mains already exist in the vicinity, the cost of service line measuring up to 30.48 meters (i.e. 100 ft.), from off/intersection points but not falling on the premises of the consumer including the cost of installation shall be borne by the licensee. The cost of any additional length of service line (in excess of 30.48 meters) including the cost of its installation shall be recovered by the licensee from the applicant(s)/intending consumer(s).’ The Complainant has also referred the column no-4.2 wherein it is mentioned that ‘where distribution mains will need to be extended or new plants, lines, distribution mains are to be installed or both in order to supply electricity to any applicant(s)/intending consumer(s), the distribution licensee shall recover the cost for the same from the applicant(s)/intending consumer(s) in the manner specified hereinafter.’ In the 4.2.1 it is mentioned that ‘the cost of the extended portion of the common facilities, including the costs of electrical plants, LT or HT lines emanating from the sub-station, distributing mains, etc. shall be borne by a new consumer/consumers in proportion to his/their respective connected loads. Those new consumers who might be served by the same extended portion of the common facilities subsequently, shall also bear the cost of the aforesaid extended facilities in proportion to their respective connected loads till the costs incurred by the licensee in extending the said facilities are fully recouped.’
From the documents filed by the OPs it is evident that due to low voltage in the area of Rabindrapally, where the Complainant is residing and sought for new electric connection one new transformer was installed of 250 KVA on 03.12.2009, which incurred cost of Rs.6,44,385.71/- From the said transformer the OPs provided new electric connection to this Complainant. It is written that approximately 320 intending consumers can get electricity through the said transformer. As the licensee had to incur the above-mentioned amount for installation of the transformer, hence the intending consumers are under obligation to make payment of proportionate amount towards the cost of the transformer. It was settled on 03.12.2009 that per KVA the consumer shall pay a sum of Rs.2, 013=00 or Rs.2,000=00 as per WBERC notification no-22 dated 28.09.2005 published in the Kolkata Gazette on 14.10.2005 sub-clause 4.2.1 and clause no-12, 13. Mentioning the above-mentioned one notice was issued by the OPs on 08.12.2009. The OPs have submitted the copy of the Kolkata Gazette dated 14.10.2005, wherein it is enumerated under 4.2.1 that ‘the cost of the extended portion facilities, including the costs of electrical plants, lines, distribution mains, etc. shall be borne by a new consumer/consumers in proportion to his/their respective connected loads. Those new consumers who might be served by the same extended portion of the common facilities subsequently, shall also bear the cost of the aforesaid extended facilities in proportion to their respective connected loads till the costs incurred by the licensee in extending the said facilities are fully recouped. In 4.2.2 it is mentioned that ‘the afore-mentioned mode of recovery of costs shall be followed notwithstanding that a licensee may be required, in some cases, to commission lines and plants etc. of capacities, which are in excess of the need of a single initial intending consumer/a group of such initial intending consumers, or the minimum standard ratings, or in consonance with good practices.’
Admittedly the Complainant applied for 3.61 KVA load. So the OPs have claimed Rs.7, 220=00 towards consumer’s contribution from the Complainant as an intending consumer in view of the WBERC @ Rs.2, 000=00 per KVA load. We have noticed that there was no deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice on behalf of the OPs as the OPs directed the Complainant to make payment of the proportionate amount towards the cost of the transformer as per their notice dated 08.12.2009 and the guidelines of WBERC, 2005. It is true that the OPs claimed the said amount towards the charges of sale of power under code no-56110 instead of consumer’s contribution under the code no-52601 due to inadvertence. Whether under the code no-56110 or 52601 whatever it may be the Complainant is under obligation to make payment of the said amount for getting new electric connection at his premises. Therefore, such simple mistake of the OPs cannot be termed as deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice of the OPs. Admittedly, after compliance with all formalities by the Complainant the OPs have provided new electric connection to the Complainant as prayed for. As the Complainant has failed to prove any deficient service of the OPs, hence in our view the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for. We are of the view that the complaint is devoid of any merit and hence, it is dismissed.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed on contest. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwanvv
