This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, SK. Noor Alam and he states that he has an electric service connection being consumer ID no. S021040 and service connection no. B/S TW – 3614 and he took the above mentioned connection in the year 1995 and the said electric service is using for operating Mini Deep Tube Well for watering the field but Mini Deep Tube Well is runned for the month February – March and April, other month of the year, Mini Deep Tube well is not operated by him.
The petitioner also states that from the year 1995 – 2006 no electric meter is installed by op no. 1 and electric bill was made an average basis by the op no. 1 and as per electric bill the petitioner paid electric charges on regular basis and in the year 2006 the op no. 1 installed electric meter. After installing electric meter the petitioner thought that electric bill has made as per reading of electric meter. It is mentioned that electric bill charges was Rs. 183/-, 270/- and after that no meter reading was found, it is always ‘0’ unit but in the electric bill the op no. 1 recorded meter reading falsely and is fabricated and manufactured by op no. 1 on the demand and request by the petitioner the meter is changed but in the changed meter no reading is found that meter always shows the meter reading is ‘0’ unit but in the electric bill huge units shown.
The petitioner also states that on April 2011 the electric bill is came with huge unit and electric charge on that bill Rs. 2053/-, then the petitioner made application to op no. 1 in respect of huge unit and huge amount but op no. 1 keep mum and did not take any step in this regard. After that the petitioner received electric bill with huge unit as well as huge amount and then the petitioner served notice to op nos. 1, 2 and 3 but they did not enquire the matter and did not take any appropriate step.
The petitioner also states that day by day electric bill charges is increased Rs. 3747/- and the petitioner has no financial capacity to pay the electric charge as per electric bill that is illegally fabricated and not equal to meter reading.
The petitioner also states that on several request the op nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not take any step and they also did not prepare the electric bill as per meter reading lastly without any notice on 16.5.2017 the op no. 1 disconnect the above mentioned electric service connection of the petitioner and the petitioner till now agree to pay electric bill as per meter reading.
The petitioner also states that op no. 1 repeatedly told that “challis hazar taka de tor sob jamela mitiye debo” but he did not agree to pay the amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Disconnection of electric service connection the petitioner suffered a lot amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- so finding no other alternative the petitioner have filed application before this Forum.
Petitioner filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the op no. 1 to supply the electric bill as per meter reading from April 2011 to February 2017 and will connect the electric service connection in the name of petition as early as possible and any other relief and compensation.
The opposite party No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that one agricultural electric connection for running shallow tube well was effected on 23.12.1995 in the name of petitioner vide consumer no. S 021040 bearing contractual load 5.88 K V A. Later in the year 2006-2007 one meter bearing SL No. RGX 01225 had installed and replaced against said service connection in place of the old meter. As per as record is available said meter was further replaced by new meter vide SL No. SF 019701 dt. 15.01.2012.
The opposite party no. 1 also submits that electric consumption bill send to the petitioner time to time as per reading of the meter but the petitioner intentionally did not paid said consumption bill regularly. As a result the amount of consumption bill felled into the outstanding dues. In this regard station manager of present op send a letter dt. 4.12.2015 and requested to the petitioner to repay outstanding dues as Rs. 1,74,599.76 but in spite of that present petitioner did not turned up and repaid said outstanding dues in the office of present op till now. Therefore there is no other alternative the station manager of present p[ ,no. 1, on several occasion contacted with the petitioner and requested him to pay outstanding dues as over dues amount of Rs. 2,49,260/- in total as on 11.3.2017 but in the said circumstances and in spite of repeated requested to him by op the petitioner was turned to defer intentionally. Even the op had tried to in spite the meter of service line and metering circuit for several time but the petitioner did not allow op no. 1 and his technical staff to see and meter room, meter and metering circuit and raised strong physical objection accordingly.
The opposite party no. 1 also submits that in the circumstances there is no other alternative op no. 1 was compelled to lodged a general diary on 11.3.2017 to the officer-in-charge, Gurap p.s. Hooghly vide GD No. 406 against petitioner as because petitioner was restrained op no. 1 and other technical staff to entered into meter room of the complainant premises on 10.3.2017 for inspection of meter and metering circuit etc.
The opposite party no. 1 also submits that there is no alternative and failure to repeated request to the complainant by op no. 1 was disconnected the electric service line from top of the pole on 16.3.2017 before given notice to him and in the circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the op as alleged by the complainant.
The opposite party no. 1 also submits that the present case as filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and complainant will not get any relief as per prayer of the petition and the op had tried to settle all the issues and problem through checking of the meter and metering circuit but due to non co-operation of petitioner this venture could be matured.
From the discussions herein above we find the following issues/points for consideration while passing final order.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this Forum.
- In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant herein is a consumer of the opposite party as the complainant has an electric service connection being consumer ID No. 5021040 and service connection no. 13/S TW-3614 and he took the above mentioned service connection in the year 1995 for operating mini deep tubewel for watering the field. So, he is entitled to get service from the opposite parties as consumer.
- Both the complainant and the opposite party are resident/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 20,000,00/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
- The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. The complainant states that from the year 1995-2006 no electric meter is installed by op no. 1 and electric bill was made an average basis by the op no. 1 and as per electric bill the complainant paid electric charges on regular basis and in the year 2006 the op no. 1 installed electric meter. After installing electric meter the complainant thought that electric bill has made as per reading of electric meter. Thereafter bill charge was Rs. 183/-, 270/- and after that no meter reading was found. It is always shows 0 unit. The complainant states that the op no. 1 recorded the meter reading falsely and fabricated and manufactured. Thereafter by the request of the complainant the op no. 1 changed the meter but no reading is found and always the meter reading shows 0 unit but in the electric bill huge unit shown. The complainant also states that on April 2011 the electric bill is came with huge unit and electric charge on that bill is Rs. 2053.00 and the complainant made an application to the op no. 1 in respect of huge unit and huge amount. The complainant states that the op no. 1 did not take any steps. Then the complainant served notice upon op nos. 1, 2 and 3 as because they keep mum and did not enquire the matters. But day to day electric billing charges is increased to Rs. 3747/-. The complainant states that being a poor farmer he has no financial capacity to pay the charges which is illegal fabricated and manufactured and not according to meter reading. The complainant further states that in order to demolish the proof the op no. 1 tried to remove the meter but the complainant resisted not to remove the meter. Thereafter the complainant on several request the op nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not take any steps and did not prepare the electric bill as per meter reading and lastly without given any notice to the complainant on 16.5.2017 the op no. 1 disconnected the above mentioned service connection of the complainant. The complainant alleged that only to harass the complainant the op no. 1 along with op nos. 2 and 3 have done this type of illegal acts. The complainant further alleged that the op no. 1 repeatedly told the complainant that “challis hazar taka de tor sob jhamela mitiye debo” but the complainant did not agree to pay the same.
Finding no other alternative the complainant compelled to file the case.
The op no. 1 in his written statement states and submits that electric connection bill send to the complainant time to time as per reading of the meter but the complainant intentionally did not paid consumption bill regularly. As a result amount of consumption bill felled into the outstanding dues. In this regard station manager of present op send a letter dt. 4.12.2015 and requested the complainant to repay outstanding dues as Rs.1,74,599.76 but in spite of that the present complainant did not turned up and repaid the said outstanding dues in the office of the present op till now. Thereafter there is no other alternative the station manager of present op no. 1 requested the complainant to pay outstanding dues as over dues amount of Rs. 2,49,260/ in total as on 11.3.2017 but in spite of repeated request the complainant was turned to defer intentionally. Even the op had tried to inspect the meter of service time and metering circuit for several times but the complainant did not allow the op no. 1 and his technical staff to see and inspect the meter room and metering circuit but the complainant was raised strong physical objection accordingly. The op no. 1 in his W/V argument states and alleged that there was no other alternative the station manager of op no. 1 was compelled to lodge General Diary on 1.3.2017 at Gurap Police Station, Hooghly vide G.D. No. 406 against the complainant as because the complainant was illegally restrained the op no. 1 and other technical staff to enter into meter room of the premises of the complainant on 10.3.2017 for inspection meter room and metering circuit etc. The op no. 1 in his argument states that having no other alternatives the Station Manager of op no. 1 disconnected the alleged service connection from the top of the electric pole on 16.3.2017 prior to given notice to the complainant.
Op no. 1 further alleged that the complainant is the habitual defaulter to pay electric consumption bill intentionally and even enjoying full electricity according to the reading of the meter by the complainant regarding the reading of meter. Op no. 1 alleged and disputes that without the payment of said outstanding dues took shelter before the ld. Forum by filing the instant case.
Therefore the op no. 1 submits that as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the present op and prayed for dismissal of the instant case with a direction to the complainant to repay entire outstanding dues till date.
Having gone through the contents of the complainant it is clear that the complainant is the habitual defaulter to pay electric consumption bill but enjoying the electricity, the complainant did not bother the said outstanding dues and tried to took shelter before the ld. Forum by filing the instant case. The complainant nowhere in his letter of complaint states that he was agreed to inspect the meter room or metering service and due is no explanation regarding outstanding dues and over dues amount of Rs. 2,49,260/-. The complainant files evidence on affidavit that it is the replica of the petition of complainant.
The complainant nowhere in his argument the reasons when the technical staff came the complainant raised objection and physically restrained the op no. 1 and the Manager of the op no. 1 Manager compelled to lodge General Diary on 1.3.2017 at Gurap P.S., Hooghly, vide. G.D. No. 406.
Considering the facts and circumstances we are in the opinion that the entire activity of the complainant is the clear indication of avoiding payment of outstanding dues as over dues amount of Rs. 2,49,260/-. So, this Forum is in the opinion with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of (1) CESC Ltd. vs. N.M. Banka and others reported in 1997 (1) CHN (SC) disputed the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to adjudicate billing related disputes in accordance with the Electricity Act, 2003 and WBERC (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations 2007, billing related disputes are to be referred to the Regional Grievance Redressal Officer (R.G.R.O) first and thereafter before the ld. ombudsman Herein also the complainant deviating from the said remedy filed this case before this ld. Forum.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of C.E.S.C. Ltd. vs. N.M. Banka and others has been pleased to hold that Specific Statutory Remedy provided by the Indian Electricity Act to the Consumer should have not been allowed to be bypassed.
Instant case filed by the complainant relates to billing disputes so this Forum is not entitled to adjudicate the case under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Hence,
it is,
ORDERED
that the C.C. Case No. 199/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost and compensation.
