IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/ 44/2017 .
Date of Filing: 24.03.2017. Date of Final Order: 09.11.2017.
Complainant : Md. Ehasan Ali, S/O Late Osman Ali Sk, Vill. Lalnagar, P.O. Nowapara Simulia,
P.S. Hariharpara, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742134.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Baharan CCC, P.O.&P.S. Hariharpara
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742166.
2. The Divisional Manager, Berhampore Division, WBSEDCL,
P.O&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya............................... President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……….……… Member.
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee ………………… Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for immediate reconnection of his service connection and for compensation of Rs.5 lakh(one lakh for mental pain and agony and Rs.4 lakhs for loss of crops).
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant has STW connection bearing No. 312226835 for cultivating 50 bighas of land which was installed on 09.01.2011 paying Rs.25,000/- for separate transformer. On first part of January 2015 he was asked to meet the S.S, Hariharpara and when met, he demanded some money illegally and told him that he will arrange to run the shallow machine without meter. The complainant denied to accept the proposal. Thereafter, the Station Manager became furious and threatened the complainant with filthy languages. On 23.01.15 without giving any information the S.S. Hariharpara came into meter room and removed old yellow meter card and attached a new yellow meter card with imaginary reading of 39796 units and asked the complainant to visit his office on 27.01.15 and on 27.01.15 when the complainant et the OP, he proposed to negotiate the matter with illegal money, the complainant refused and then again he throated with complainant. Before 23.01.15 the complainant used to pay the bills regularly noted as normal bill, there was no noting about any outstanding bill. On 30.01.15 going to the filed complainant found that the isolation of the said shallow has been lost and lodged written complainant about the incident with the P.S. The OP has also removed the transformer. He has no right to remove the same as the complainant has paid for the same. On 10.01.2016 the OP has illegally disconnected the said service connection without giving any opportunity claiming payment for the units which the complainant has not consumed. Cultivation is the only earning of the complainant and for the disconnection he has suffered a huge loss and having no relief, the complainant has been compelled to file the instant complaint. Hence the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP-WBSEDCL, in brief, is that the OP has denied the allegation categorically as to loss of isolator, removal of transformer and contribution of Rs.25,000/- for the transformer. The meter reading could not be taken the same being locked and for that the OP used to send average bill around 50 to 200 units. On 23.01.15 the Station Manager of Baharan CCC went to the locality for inspection and he the petitioner bound to open the Door of the Room and the meter reading was found to be 39796 units. A bill was sent for the month of February, 2015 for (39796 – 3148) = 36648 units amounting to sum of Rs.1, 55,659/- . The petitioner refused to pay the amount. The Opposite Party disconnected the service line on 10.01.2016. The complainant being silent for a long period, the Opposite Party was bound to remove the Transformer in the month of January, 2017. The transformer is the property of WBSEDCL. The petitioner has no right over the same. The complainant stated in his averment that he cultivated more than 50 Bighas of land under the meter. So, it is impossible that he consumed 3148 units from 09.01.2011 to 29.12.2014 i.e. 65 units per month. The case is liable to be rejected.
Considering the pleadings of the parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the dispute.
Points for Consideration.
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the ambit of C. P. Act, 1986?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is praying for reconnection of STW connection of the complainant and for compensation of Rs.4 lakh for loss of crops and Rs.1 lakh for mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s case is that the OP used to pay average bill for 60 to 150 units from the date of installation of meter on 09.01.2011 to 23.01.2015 the date of taking reading removing the old yellow card, taking reading of 39796 units. After that the OP sent bill for Rs.1,55,659/- for 36648/- units illegally and for non non-payment of the same , disconnected the line on 10.01.2016. On 30.01.15 the complainant found that the isolator was lost and transformer for which the complainant paid Rs.25, 000/- was illegally removed by the OP for such illegal disconnection the complainant suffered loss of crops of more than 50 bighas of land cultivated by him.
On the other hand, the OP-WBSEDCL has denied the allegation of the complainant as to illegal disconnection and illegal removal of transformer being the complainant has no right over the transformer though he has paid for that and regarding average billing the OP’s case is that the meter room being found locked at the time of taking reading, they could not take reading.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence-on-affidavit and the relevant documents in support of his case.
On the other hand the OP-WBSEDCL has filed the impugned bill for Rs.155659 /- and one previous bill d t. 05.01.2015 for Rs.916.29 and from those two documents it appears that last payment of Rs.230/- was made on 28.10.2015.
Admittedly, the impugned connection was installed on 09.01.2011.
It is also admitted that since 09.01.2011 till 23.01.2015 the OP-WBSEDCL used to send average bill for 50 units to 150 units per month.
It is also clear that on 23.01.2015 the OP-WBSEDCL took reading opening the Meter Room by the complainant and the reading was noted in the Yellow Card as 39796 and it is also clear from the record that the impugned bill was sent thereafter by the OP to the complainant in the month of February, 2015 for Rs.1, 55,659/- for consumption of (39796 – 3148 ) =36648 units.
From the bill it appears that the OP deducted 3148 units for the earlier bills already paid for the period from 9.01.2011 to 23.01.2015. It further appears from the averment of the complaint petition that the instant service connection was installed on 09.01.2011 for operation of shallow tube-well for cultivation of 50 bighas of land.
The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has disputed the reading during argument raising dispute as to the reading taken by the OP on 23.01.2015 as 39796 as abnormal and the same is not correct. But there is no case of the complainant about the defective meter, also there is no case that the meter reading was not taken in presence of the complainant and the reading is inflated and false.
Further, considering the quantum of land i.e 50 bighas which was irrigated by the impugned shallow tube-well of the complainant and the question of consumption of electricity for that purpose, to our mind, cannot be within 50-150 units since 09.01.2011 to 23.01.2015, the same cannot be 3148 units which has been paid by the complainant at the time of raising the bill for the month of February, 2015.
Considering the above facts and circumstances we have no scope to disbelieve the reading taken by the OP in presence of the complainant for the period from 09.01.2011 to 23.01.2015 as 39796 units on 23.01.2015 .
That being so, we can safely conclude that the complainant is to pay the bill for consumption of 39796 units minus 3148 units cost of which appears to have already been paid by the complainant.
The amount involved for payment of the bill is Rs.1,55,659/- by a farmer at a time is not possible and the present position is that the electric line has already been disconnected and the meter stands for agricultural purpose where the socio-economic condition is involved, we are of view that the complainant is entitled to get the benefit of payment of the impugned bill by easy installments .
Now the case of the complainant is that his Isolator was stolen and for that F.I.R was lodged.
In this regard it appears that though the isolator was stolen but supply of electricity to the impugned meter was not stopped for the theft of Isolator.
That being so, the question of consideration of theft of the Isolator of the complainant, in this case, does not arise.
Regarding the question of reconnection of the service line of the complainant which has already been disconnected on 10.01.2016. The dispute is that the complainant has paid Rs.25, 000/- for the transformer for installation of his electric line and after disconnection, the said transformer has been removed by the OP-WBSEDCL. At the same time, it has been challenged by the complainant to the effect that the OP cannot remove the transformer as the complainant has paid Rs.25, 000/- for the transformer.
In this regard Ld. Lawyer for the OP-WBSEDCL has categorically raised objection against this argument of the complainant and argued that the transformer is the property of the OP-WBSEDCL and the complainant cannot claim the said property of his own, though the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- for the purpose.
He has further advanced argument that the impugned bill not being paid within the stipulated period and for only one customer whose electric line has been disconnected for non-payment of the same even after getting sufficient opportunity, the OP-WBSEDCL cannot keep the transformer idle there and for that, as per rules & regulations, the OP-WBSEDCL utilized the said transformer by removing from the land of the complainant and the complainant should seek for connection by applying afresh.
The complainant raised objection against this argument.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the entire case as discussed above we are of the view that this particular case is to be considered in a different angle as the meter involves for cultivation of 50 bighas of land for agricultural purposes and the same is involving socio-economic condition. So, without entering into the ownership of the transformer, the question is to be decided only for re-connection of the disputed service connection.
That being so, we are of view that the complainant in this particular case , be exempted from applying afresh for getting connection of his service connection should be reconnected after depositing a lump sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the arrear bill and disconnection-reconnection charges by the complainant and the balance amount to be paid by the complainant by easy installments. The complainant should not be charged for the cost of the transformer again.
On the basis of the above discussions we find that all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant. As the complainant is entitled to get relief for reconnection of his service line after initial payment of Rs.40,000/- in respect of his arrear bill of Rs.1,55,659/-. The balance amount of Rs.(1,55,659/ - 40,000/-) =Rs.1,15,659/- is to be paid by 11 equal monthly installments of Rs.10,000/- each and the last installment is for Rs.5659/-.
Hence,
Ordered
That the Consumer Complaint No. 44/2017 be and the same is allowed in part on contest in favour of the complainant.
The complainant is entitled to get his electric line reconnected after payment of Rs.40,000/- in respect of the arrear bill and disconnection-reconnection charges and he is to pay the balance amount by easy installments. The complainant should not be charged for the cost of the transformer again.
The complainant is directed to deposit Rs.40, 000/- in respect of his arrear bill as initial payment as early as possible and disconnection-reconnection charges.
The OP- WBSEDECL is directed to restore the electric line of the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of Rs.40, 000/- as initial payment of the outstanding bill from the complainant.
In case of default on the part of the OP-WBSEDCL, after receiving Rs.40,000/-, the OP is to pay Rs.50/- per day’s delay as fine and the amount so accumulated, by D.D, shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
The balance amount of Rs.(1,55,659/- 40,000/-) = Rs.1,15,659/- is to be paid by the complainant by 11 equal monthly installments of Rs.10,000/- each and the last installment is for Rs.5659/-.
The complainant is also directed to pay the installments within the fortnight of each month along with current bills as per date/dates of the bill.
In case of any default on the part of the complainant, the OP is at liberty to disconnect the electric line of the complainant forthwith.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
