West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/16/2016

Sk Asadul Haque - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, Uperkuai Customer Care Center of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

Somasish Panda

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay

Complaint Case No.16 /2016

                                                        

                                      Sk. Asadul Haque…….……………………Complainant.

Versus

 

1)The Station Manager, Uperkuai Customar Care Center of W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

 

 

              For the Complainant: Mr. Somashis Panda ,  Advocate.

              For the O.P.               :                                        

 

 

Decided on : 27/10/2016

                               

ORDER

   Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member– Complainant is present. Today is date fixed for ex party hearing. Hd. Ld. Advocate and persued the documents. It appears from the record that the Ops. are avoiding their appearance despite having received the notice in due time. Thus there exists strong reasons to believe that the Ops. are willfully avoiding their appearance in the case Ld. Advocate for the Complainant filed relevant documents on the point of service of notice. In view of the present circumstances and the materials on record, there is no option but to here the case ex-party. Accordingly, the case is heard and considered.

                     The petitioner is the permanent resident of Vill &P.O.- Mugbasan, P.S.-Keshpur , Dist Paschim Medinipur within the jurisdiction of your honour’s orum and O.P. is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of honour's Forum . Complainant for starting a husking machine for his livelihood by self employment prayed for electric connection which was given by W.B.S.D.C.L. in the year 1998 vide service connection No-I1465 ,Consumer No-I500207 &

Contd….P/2

 

 

                                                                                                     ( 2 )

Meter No - ST210049 to the petitioner and he had been paying amount to W.B.S.D.C.L. as per bill served upon him . In course of consumption of electricity there was theft of the aforesaid meter from the premises of his husking mill in the night of 17/18.11.2004 which was duly intimated to the office of the Op. No-1 and there was enquiry from the office of opposite parties upon such intimation and such theft was found there to be correct but unfortunately office of W.B.S.D.C.L. caused initiation of criminal case against petitioner by lodging complaint to Keshpur Police station vide Keshpur P.S case No- 93/2004 dated 04.12.2004 u/s 379/201 I.P.C. &U/S 136(a) & 135(i) (6)(c) of Electricity Act 2003 giving rise to Indian Electricity Act case No- 437/2004 which was disposed of by Ld. Addl. Session Judge, Special Court under Electricity Act, Paschim Medinipur acquitting him on 28/02/2014.

                  In the meantime after lodging of the aforesaid case the office of the opposite parties served a bill of Rs.1,63,0461/- for 24,777 units upon him for the period from 11.11.2004 to 27.11.2004 i.e. for 17 days without any basis although there was payment of all bills including last bill dated 06.11.2004 containing reading of the aforesaid stolen meter as 10550 on 30.10.2004. Complainant move Hon'ble high Court for the aforesaid absurd a amount assessed by the office of the opposite parties and the said petition was registered as Writ Petition No-22415(W) of 2004 which was disposed of on 20.12.2004 directing electricity Department to restore electricity to the premises of his husking mill on receipt of 25% of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,63,046/- which stood at Rs.40,762/- which was paid by your complainant to the office of the opposite party No- 1 vide receipt No-015560 dt. 04.04.2005 alongwith Rs.9,000/- vide receipt No- 015561 dt. 04.04.2005 towards cost of new meter and Rs.100/- towards reconnection charge vide receipt No-084437 dt. 04.04.2005 . On receipt of the aforesaid amount being Rs. 40,762/-, Rs - 9,0001- and Rs.100/- totaling Rs.49,862/- from the complainant to the office of the OP. No-1 restored the electricity to his aforesaid husking mill premises through installation of new meter being No-LT310437 on 06.04.2005 .

                That after such restoration of electcity he as operating his husking mill and made payment of last bill dated 06.09.2005 containing reading of the aforesaid new installed meter as 347 units on 02.09.2005 and thereafter no bill was served upon him inspite of consumption of electricity and as such repeated written intimation dated 17.10.2005 , 18.01.2006 , 04.02.2006 & 07.03.2006 were given to the office of the O.P. No-1 for non - service of any bill after 06.09.2005 which were acknowledged by the office of the opposite party No 1 and thereafter in the last part of 2006  office

 

Contd….P/3

 

 

                                                                                                     ( 3 ) 

 

disconnected electricity of his aforesaid husking mill premises without any intimation to him such situation was going on and after his acquittal on 28.02.2014 in the aforesaid Criminal case he made prayer on 01.12.2014 for restoration of electricity to his premises after waiting a considerable period for appeal if preferred by electricity department as allegation of pilferage of electricity by your office against him could not be proved in the court resulting his acquittal in the aforesaid case and thereby the aforesaid pilferage bill did not sustain and admitting the same your office restored electric connection to his husking mill premises on 31.12.2014 and on receipt of Rs 5,700/- being asked verbally from him to . be adjusted with consumption for the period from September 2005 to last part of 2006 . Complainant was served a bill of Rs.- 62,817/- agam by the office of the opposite party showing the same reading and units as mentioned in earlier bill of Rs 48,152/- without giving any justification for the demand of the amounts shown in different heads like fixed / demand charge and LPSC charge in the aforesaid bill which are also not sustainable when the allegation of pilferage of electricity has not been proved. From the aforesaid fact / discussion- analysis it will be found that charge for consumption of electricity of 5377 /-units as mentioned in the aforesaid three bills of Rs.- 19,043/-, Rs -48,152/- & Rs . 62817/- covering 'the aforesaid units of 5377/- for the same period in each of the aforesaid bills can only be made at the rate i,e, in the year of 2005 -2006, not of the current rate of the year 2015 with adjustment of Rs.- 19,093/- for 5377/- and as calculate it will be found that the same will remain within Rs.- 20,000/- with which the aforesaid earlier payment of Rs - 19,093/- to be deducted by adjustment and as such the aforesaid bills are required to be recast and thereby to prepare a single bill through recasting for the reason as sated above. That after receipt of the frivolous bills your complainant sent a intimation with prayer for consideration of the said bills on 16.03.2015 and after receipt of the same the O.P. No-1 sent a notice to the complainant 17.03.2015 and fixing up a hearing date for hearing on 24.03.2015 at 03.30 P.M. with Divisional Empowered committee at the office of the Divisional Manager Ghatal CD) Division , Nischintapur , Ghatal and accordingly  complainant appeared on that day for participation of hearing but the opposite party did not give any result or pass any order on that day and the said authority told your complainant that they would inform the result of the hearing in future after confirmation of approval from superior but after passing more than six months the said office did neither gave any result to the complainant nor passed any order to take monthly current electricity bill and in pit of going to the office of the O.P. No-1 no payment of current monthly bill is being received on raising the earlier dispute and thereafter the complainant was compelled to make prayer to the higher authority i,e, Regional office for consideration and or taking necessary action for recervmg current bills according to consumption but the electric offices did not solve any problem of the above matter inspite of repeated requests to the concerned authority ofW.B.S.D.C.L.

             Contd….P/4

 

                                                                                                     ( 4 )-

 

           The arrear claim of Rs 61,192/- made by the opp. Party towards arrear bill as per assessment mentioned therein is wrong and unjust in view of epresentation made by the complainant followed by hearing stated above and the opp.party can not ignore the re- presentation of the complainant ( 16. That the opp. party can not claim different charges for arrear amount in respect of previous units current tariff is caused deficiency in service by doing unfair trade and practice from the side the opp. Parties. Complainant is an unemployed youth and he has no permanent job and for his livelihood he is required to start the aforesaid husking mill but he is not being able to be do so due to non- settlement of claim of bills and your complainant is in panic for disconnecting of electricity was made as the office of electricity threatened for payment of the absorbed bills as send by the office of the opp. parties.

Points for decision

                                   That such repudiation is illegal and there is gross deficiency of service from the such of the Op. Station Manager, Uperkuai Customer Case Centre of W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Neradual, P.S. Keshpur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.

                                  W.B.S.E.D.CL., Neradual Cannot give satisfactory answer rather the Op. intentionally dalay to prepare bill in respect of 5377 units from September’2005 to last part of 2006 as per tariff rate of the relevant period and also mentally and economically harassed to Complainant.

                                  That such dilatory practice is illegal and improper and there is from deficiency of service from the side of            W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Neradual.

                                   That the Complainant being a consumer is caused by the provision of the Consumer Protection Act under the given facts and circumstances and observation above thisw is a fir case hold that Complainant has proved the allegation of deficiency of service against the Op.

                                                      Hence

                                                                       it is

Ordered

                                                                                                       that the Complaint Case is allowed ex parte. 

           The Op. is directed to prepare bill in respect of 5377 units from the September 2005 to last part of 2006 as per tariff rate of the relevant period. Op. is directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-  and 10,000/- for mental pain and agony for making false allegation against him. Op. is directed to pay 50,000/- for loss of employment for the period from 2004 to 2015.

 

       Dictated & Corrected by me

              Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay                 Sd/- D.Sengupta                       Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                          Member                                         Member                                  President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur