DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC - 79 of   2017

 

 

      Sri Sambhu Debnath,

S/O- Lt. Jagabandhu Debnath,

Gandhigram, Near Satsang Mandir,

West Tripura. .…...Complainant.

 

 

          VERSUS

 

      1. The Senior Manager,

Bamutia Electrical Sub-Division,

Tripura State Electrical Corporation Ltd.,

Kalibazar, West Tripura.

 

      2. The Chairman cum CMD,

Tripura State Electrical Corporation Ltd.,

Corporate Office at North Banamalipur,

Agartala, West Tripura. ........... Opposite Parties.

 

 

 __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Biswajit Bhattacharya,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.Ps : Miss Rajashree Purkasyastha,

  Advocate.

  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  11.12.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by Sambhu Debnath U/S 12 of the Consumer Pro tection Act. 

2. Petitioner's case in short is that his father was the consumer of the commercial connection given by the O.P. Complainant was paying the electricity bill but since 2016 O.P. did not supply the electricity consumption bill. Complainant several times visited the office of the O.P. and requested to install the new electric meter. In the year  2017 on 03.03.17 submitted written application for supply provision bill. O.P. then assessed the consumed bill from 27.10.17 to 22.04.17 and demanded Rs.3,283/-. O.P. also assessed the illegal power theft by hook line and asked the complainant to pay Rs. 9,010/-.  Complainant paid Rs.12,293/- and paid disconnection charge Rs.100/-. Thereafter new connection was given in the name of the petitioner. Petitioner suffered because of the deficiency of service of the O.P.and claimed compensation Rs.1 lac.

 

3. O.P. filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that petitioner did not pay consumption bill from 27.10.13 to 22.04.17. He did not pay the amount for 2016. They stated that bill was supplied to him up to 2017. Complainant was enjoying unauthorized electric connection by using hook line illegally so his connection was temporarily disconnected  in the year 2013 but he continued to enjoy power supplies up to 2016 as per his admission. He is therefore not entitled to get any relief or compensation as claimed. 

 

4. On the basis of rival contention as raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;

(I) Whether the petitioner continued to enjoy electricity supply  connection after disconnection by O.P.? 

(II) Whether there was any deficiency of service by O.P.?

 

5. Petitioner produced original letter dated 03.03.17, copy of bill, original provisional assessment of theft, original money receipt, estimate for the new connection and another money receipt Exhibit- 1 Series.

Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., the complainant.

 

6. O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of Deepak Jamatia, Manager(Electrical).

 

7. On the basis of all theses evidence we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision on points No.1 and 2:

8. Petitioner admitted that electricity line was in the name of his father earlier. It was a commercial line. The problem started in May, 2016 when O.P. failed to supply electricity bill. But petitioner could not produce any single evidence to support that he paid any amount up to May, 2016 for electricity consumption. As per record his connection was snapped by the O.P. in the year 2013. electricity bill was not supplied. So petitioner did not pay any amount. After lapsed of about 4 years in the year 2017 he informed SDO, Electrical to make enquiry. He complained that the meter was defective. From the Exhibit- 1 Series, bill it is found that meter stopped since, 2013. No bill was paid during the billing period from 27.10.13 to 22.04.17 for Rs.3,283/-. Petitioner could not produced any other bill to show that during this period he paid any other bill and according to him up to 2016 everything was O.K. From the Exhibit- 1 Series it is found that as per electricity rule for theft of electricity O.P. imposed fine of Rs.9,010/-. This is also not on higher side. The line was in the name of his father. So he was not a consumer at that time. He then prayed for new connection in his name and after assessment estimate was given for Rs.2111/- and amount was paid by him and new connection was given.

 

9. From perusal of the evidence of both sides it is clear that O.P. State Electricity Board did not charge much amount from the Petitioner who consumed electricity for a long period from 27.10.13 to 22.04.17 without any payment. The processes for disconnection was not rightly followed, as notice not given. It was disconnected temporarily for 6 months and after 6 months when payment was not made finally the line was disconnected. But in this case O.P. failed to submit any paper to show that any notice was given to the complainant before disconnection. O.P. Tripura Electricity Board also failed to produce any paper to show that during the last 4 years period or before that any bill was supplied to the petitioner for payment. Even before making disconnection the demand notice was not given to the petitioner. All these appears to us to be deficiency of service of O.P. Petitioner did not pay electricity bill and enjoyed electricity connection by unauthorizedly taking the electricity for running the commercial shop. The line was not in his name so disconnection and giving charge for taking new connection is rightly done. The consumption charge for 4 years is also not found higher. But the O.P. Tripura State Electricity Corporation failed to give notice before disconnection and also failed to supply  the consumption bill in time to the petitioner and for this deficiency of service petitioner is entitled to get some compensation for Rs.3,000/- and also litigation cost Rs.2,000/-, total Rs.5,000/-. He is not entitled to get any amount as he had fault. Both the points are decided accordingly. 

 

10. We, therefore, direct the O.P. Senior Manager, TSECL to pay Rs.5,000/- for their deficiency of service. The amount is to be paid within 2(two) months  if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.       

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA