West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/58/2012

Priyabrata Giri - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, Group Electric Supply, Keshiary, W.B.S.E.D.C.L - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint case No. 58/2012                                              Date of disposal: 06/07/2012                               

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                     MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxx

                                                     MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. B. K. Bhattacharya.

For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. D.D. Mahapatra.

            Priyabrata Giri, S/o-Late Bibhuti Bhusan Giri, Vill-Khajra, P.O.-Kushgeria, P.S.-

            Keshiary, Dist-Paschim Medinipur………….Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Station Manager, Group Electric Supply, Keshiary, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., P.O. & P.S.- Keshiary, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Bidyut Bhavan, Block-DG, Sector-II, Salt Lake City,  Kolkata-700091…………………Ops.

            The case of the complainant, in a nut shell, is as follows:-

            The complainant is a consumer under the Ops and has been paying the bills towards electricity charges regularly. On 17/5/2006 the men of the Ops. came to the Husking Mill of the complainant and lodged a false case of theft of energy under Section 135(1)(b)(c) of the Electricity Act and on the basis of that complaint Keshiary P.S. Case No.21/2006 was started against the complainant.  The Op No.1 sent a false assessment bill of Rs.1,71,482/-.  On 18/5/2006 and on 30/12/2006 the complainant had deposited Rs.57,160/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively to the op No.1 and obtained bail from the Ld. Special Court under the Electricity  Act at Midnapore.  The aforesaid case was disposed of by the Ld. Special Court by a judgement dated on 20/5/2008 and in that case the Court was pleased to hold the complainant not guilty.  Thereafter, the complainant has been running the Husking Mill on payment of regular bill raised by the Op No.1.  On 05/4/12 the Op No.1 sent a notice to the complainant demanding Rs.64,322/- after final assessment of the pilferage bill.  According to the complainant the Op No.1 illegally took money from the complainant amounting to Rs.1,07,160/-.  Therefore, the complainant alleged that the service of the Ops are deficient and they have adopted unfair trade practice causing heavy loss to the complainant.

Contd………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -              

                 The Ops contested the case by filing a W/O denying the material averments of the petition of complaint.  The specific contention of the Ops were that on 17/5/2006 inspection was held at the industrial premises of the complainant. Some irregularities having been found a complaint was lodged by the competent authority of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L with the Keshiary P.S. and accordingly Keshiary P.S. Case No.21/2006 dated 17/5/2006 was started.  The Ops further contended that as per the provision of Electricity Act the provisional assessment bill of           Rs.1, 71,482/- was prepared and served upon the complainant asking him to attend the final hearing.  But the complainant neither appeared on the date of hearing nor challenged the provisional bill. So in view of the provision of electricity act the provisional bill became final.

                 Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs.1,07,160/- but did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.64,322/- for which the industrial service line of the complainant was disconnected on 11/5/12.  The Ops specifically contended that the complainant did not avail of the opportunity of hearing and as such he is estopped from raising any dispute.  The Ops. also denied of the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  So, the Ops prayed for dismissal of the present case.

                  It is not for our consideration as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as stayed for.

Decisions with reasons

                  In the present case the complainant has prayed for declaration that the Provisional Bill and the Final Bill as assessed by the Op. No.1 for Rs.171482/- is illegal, void and without jurisdiction.  The Op. further prayed for a direction upon the Op. No.1 to refund the money amounting to Rs.57,160/- + Rs.50,000/- total Rs.1,77,160/-.  Further prayer of the complainant was for award the compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and cost.

                   At the outset, we would like to mention that the first prayer of the Op, that is, declaration that the Provisional Bill and Final Bill assessed by the Op. for Rs.1,71,482/- is illegal, void and without jurisdiction, can not be entertained by this Forum because this Forum has got no power to make such declaration.  As per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, we do not find that this Forum can pass such declaration.  We are of the considered view that power of granting such remedy lies elsewhere.

                    Next, the complainant has prayed for direction upon the Op No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.1,07,160/- which he deposited to the Op as per the bill charged by the Op No.1.  While arguing in this case the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant very fairly conceded that the complainant is not entitled to get refund of this amount which he made as part payment of the Provisional Bill.

                   The Provisional Bill of Rs.1,71,482/- appears to have been submitted under Section

Contd………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) - 

126 of the Electricity Act 2003.  It is not disputed in this case that the complainant was given opportunity of making his submission against the Provisional Bill and a specific date i.e. 15/6/2006 was fixed for hearing with regard to the Provisional Assessment Bill.  On that date the Op did not appear before the appropriate authority.  Section 127 of the Electricity act stipulate the provision of appeal against any order passed under Section 126 of the act.  In the present case, the Op appears to have failed to take that opportunity.  Not only  that he also failed to avail of the opportunity which was given to him.  Needless to say that where any law prescribes for challenging any action taken by the authority concerned,  before coming to this Forum recourse should be taken as provided in that law.  In the instant case, we have already found that in stead of availing the opportunity under the law the complainant has come before this Forum.  Moreover, we have also found that this Forum cannot grant relief in the form in which it has been prayed by the complainant.

                          Thus, we do not find any merit in the present case and hence it is dismissed.                                                                  

Dic. & Corrected by me

                                                                               

               Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

         President                                Member                                            President

                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.