West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/89/2013

Sri Bhaskar Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complainant Case No.89/2013                                                         Date of disposal:  30/01/2014                            

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

   

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. P. Mandal, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. Bhattacharyay, Advocate.

          

    Sri Bhaskar Roy, S/o-Nanda Roy, Vill. Nagda, P.O. Kamageria, P.S. Keshpur,                                                                                                                  

    Dist Paschim Medinipur………………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Anandapur CCC, 

      P. O. & P.S. Anandapur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur,

2. The Divisional Engineer, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Station Road,

      Midnapore, Dist-Paschim Medinipur

3. The Chairman, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Salt Lake City,  Block

      DJ, Sector II, Salt Lake City,  Kolkata 700091………………Ops.

 

          Case of the complainant Sri Bhaskar Roy, in short, is that he is a bona fide consumer to the Op W.B.S.E.D.C.L and runs a self-employment business on Chiken Poultry for his livelihood by making regular payment of electric bill.  But the Op without due notice illegally disconnected the electric line on 16/02.13.  The petitioner repeatedly requested for reconnection and ultimately sent a notice on 17/05/13  through his Ld. Advocate by registered post with A.D.  even so no good action has been taken by the Op with this complain the petitioner claim compensation of Rs.300000/- (Thre lakhs) only on account of loss of his business.

          The Op W.B.S.E.D.C.L contested the case by filing written statement challenging that the case is not maintainable in its present form particularly for want of cause of action.  The allegation of disconnection without due notice is denied.  In this connection, the Op placed a case before us that the petitioner took electric connection only for poultry firm.  But the complainant by practicing fraud

Contd…………….P/2

 

 

- ( 2 ) -

and theft of electricity was using submersible pump installed just adjacent to the poultry fir.  The Op further stated the case in details that a special team of the electricity board in place of local people has detected the unlawful use of submersible pump by theft of energy.  In this connection, the G.D entry with proper seizure list  was lodged with the local police station for theft of electricity and as such  the Forum has no jurisdiction to go into the merit except special court as per notification has jurisdiction to trey such case of theft of electricity.

           Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues :

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?
3. Us there any separate proceeding for theft of electricity pending before the special court?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for?

 

Decision with reasons :

Issue Nos.1 to 4 :

            All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

            Ld. Advocate in a computer argued that the electricity connection is in the name of Bhaskar Roy the complainant hereof who goes on making payment of electricity bills on account of lawful consumption  of energy through the service connection NO.200168992.  In order to support the case, certain documents, namely, electricity bill dated 31/01/3, 25/04/13, 31/07/13 and 07/11/13 along with payment receipts relating to those bills as stated are produced before us.  Ld. Advocate further argued that since the supply of electricity is in the name of complainant Sri Bhaskar roy the Op W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Ltd. has no valid ground for disconnection of such supply of electricity to the complainant as made allegedly on 16/02/13.  There might be a theft case from the end of Op in the name of other person Nanda Roy, the action should maintain against the said person Nanda Roy.  The Op should never create any trouble to the complainant on the plea of a case on theft of energy against another person.  This grievance has been raised before the Op but no action has been taken and as such the complainant should get compensation for the trouble created by the Op.

            Ld. Advocate for the Op W.B.S.E.D.C.L. on the other hand argued that the theft of energy was illegally committed for the purpose of running a poultry firm and simultaneously a submersible pump.  As a result, the complainant caused loss of revenue to the extent of  2,23,004/- (Two lakhs twenty three thousand four) only and on that ground the Op. admittedly  started a case

Contd…………….P/3

 

 

 

- ( 3 ) -

against Nanda Roy father of the present complainant.  Divisional Engineer, Tarun Kumar Sahu himself lodged a complaint before the police station under Section 135 of electricity act 2007 for taking cognizance against Nanda Roy.  It is pointed out by the Ld. Lawyer by producing the copy of FIR dated 12/11/12, inspection note dated 12/11/12 and scissor list dated 12/11/12.  Upon this event it has been referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the Op that there was sufficient ground for disconnection of supply of electreicity to the complainant and if the loss of revenue is not paid there is no justified ground for giving reconnection as the complainant prayed for.  Apart from that as a case of theft of energy in the relevant supply of electricity line to the complainant of loss of revenue, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case.

            Upon careful consideration of both parties together with the documents as per firisty filed by the parties, it has come before us that there is no challenge made by the complainant towards the case of the Op-W.B.S.E.D.C.L. in the matter of referring submersible pump.  It is reasonable for us to accept the plea of loss of revenue on account of theft of energy from the supply line to the complainant.  Admittedly, the case of theft of energy lies against an adult  person Nanda Roy presumable before a special court under Electricity Act, the facility to consume electricity by the complainant should not be curtailed, particularly, when he is found to have maintaining regular payment of electricity bills as raised by the Op till 07/11/13.

             Under the fact and circumstances, it is reasonable to hold that the complainant being the consumer to the Op W.B.S.E.D.C.L should not be caused to suffer in the matter of bonafide consumption of electricity.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to interfere with the case of theft of electricity pending against another person Sri Nanda Roy as the Op has sufficient scope and opportunity to proceed against him before appropriate Forum.  According to our opinion this is not a case of theft of energy against the complainant.  It is very clear before us that the theft of energy took place in the house of Sri Nanda Roy by process of hooking from electricity line.  If that be so we do not find anywhere that the complainant committed theft of energy in his premises.  In this connection, it is very much curious before us that as to why and on what ground the Op. is found to have desisted in making allegation of theft of energy against this complainant.  No satisfactory information or reply has come from the end of the Op.  Thus, the prayer for getting reconnection by the complainant is genuine and full of reason which could have been considered by the Op.

               In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is held and decided that the case to the extent of ground stated by the complainant is maintainable same and except the case of theft of energy against some other person as raised by the Op.

       Contd…………….P/4

 

 

 

- ( 4 ) -    

                The complainant has cause of action for seeking relief particularly for getting reconnection of supply of electricity to him subject to technical paraphernalia to be observed in this behalf.

                   Hence

                              It is ordered

                                                  that the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest without cost.

                 The complainant Sri Bhaskar Roy entitled to get reconnection of electricity line subject to payment of reconnection charge as applicable in this behalf within fifteen days from this order.

                  In this connection, the Op is at liberty to proceed for recovery of their loss of energy before the proper jurisdiction.

                 The Op is hereby directed to take necessary steps for giving reconnection of the supply of electricity to the complainant Bhaskar Roy within fifteen days from this date of order.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                Member              Member                                  President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.