The brief facts of the case as can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant took electric connection bearing Consumer No. 424051043 and connection No. R 05016 from the Opposite Party since a long period and enjoyed the facility of electricity. Once the Opposite Party replaced his old meter by installing a new meter and there after the Complainant noticed that the billing rate gradually became high than the previous month. It is the case of the Complainant that after installation of new meter the amount as to the bill increased, the Opposite Parties demanded more and due to financial crisis the Complainant did not pay the Electric Bill and as a result the O.P. disconnected the electric line at the premises of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant several times went to the Opposite Party for make payment of the Bill but the Opposite Party did not receive the same for which the Complainant suffered a lot. The Opposite Party continuously issued Electric Bill in favour of the Complainant even after disconnection of the electric line that also put the Complainant in a hardship. Thus, finding no other alternative the Complainant has filed the present case seeking redress and relief.
On prayer of the Complainant DF case No. 17. 2014 was registered; the notice was issued in favour of the Opposite Party. The opposite Party appeared through ld. Agent and by filing W/V contested the case contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form as well as in law. Admitting the fact of electric connection in the house of the Complainant this O.P. averred that the Complainant did not pay the energy bill since 05.09.2012 to 28.02.2013 and due to non - payment of Electric bill his service connection has been disconnected on 22.03.2013 vide Notification No. 55/ WBERC, THE KOLKATA GAZETTE, KOLKATA, the 7th August, 2013 under regulation clause 04.01.04 after service of demand notice. In the present case as the Consumer did not pay the energy bill since 05.09.2012 i.e. the period of 180 days already been elapsed for which the agreement of the WBSEDCL authority with the consumer shall be deemed to have been terminated. The another contention of the O.P is that as per WBERC rules the Complainant has every right to claim the security money also contended that as and when the termination of the agreement has taken place then only on the basis of a fresh application and after payment of outstanding dues with late charge the consumer can get e new service connection otherwise, the O.P. has no power to render him any service in this regard.
The Opposite Party also averred that the answering O.P. always issued electric bill as per consumption of unit for which allegation of excess bill does not arise. Putting all the above this O.P. claimed that it has no deficiency in service and thus the present case liable to be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed Evidence on affidavit. Perused and considered. W/Ar. Filed by the Ld. Agent of the Opposite Party.
In the light of the contention of the both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service by disconnecting the electric connection as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the parties at a length.
Point No.1.
The Complainant had an electric connection bearing No. R05016, Consumer ID-424051043 installed by the Opposite Party and admittedly he is the bonafied customer of the Opposite Party for which undoubtedly a consumer of the Opposite Party as per Section 2 1(d) (II) of the C.P. Act 1986.
Point No.2.
The Opposite Party has its office office at Cooch Behar town and total valuation of this case is Rs 7,500/- which is far less than Rs.20,00,000/-.
So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Undisputedly, the Complainant had an electric connection being Consumer I/D No.424051043. The Complainant paid the bill regularly since after installation of the electric line in his premises prior to 05.09.2012.
The point of the dispute is that the Opposite Party raised excess bill, the Complainant was unable to pay the said bill for which the opposite Party has disconnected the electric line.
It is the case of the opposite Party that the Complainant failed the electric bill on the period from 05.09.2012 to 28.02.2013 for which his service connection has been disconnected on 22.03.2013.
Evidently, the Complainant enjoyed the electricity facility installed by the Opposite party. The Complainant in his written complaint, as well as in Evidence clearly stated that the Opposite Party changed his old meter and installed a new meter and since after installation of the new meter the bill became high. The Complainant further alleged that being a daily labour he consumed minimum units but the opposite Party raised huge bill showing maximum consumption which is not possible to consume the said unit or to pay the said absurd bills by the Complainant. However, in the case record we did not find any scrap of papers regarding installation of new meter instead of old conventional meter. It is also not the case of the Complainant that the meter in question is defective. Moreover, the Bills issued by the Opposite Party clearly show that the Opposite Party took the reading in due time and issued bill mentioning the actual consumed units. The Complainant alleged that the Opposite Party raised a huge bill on 05.09.2012 but the Complainant failed to file the previous bill of low amount from which we can get the differences.
Annexure “B”,”C”,”D” reveals that the Complainant consumed 290 units, 143 units and 70 units respectively. Showing the bill dated 05.09.2012 the Complainant wrote a letter to the O.P (Annexure D) that the Complainant did not consume said amount and the bill is unethical and prayed for disconnecting the line if the O.P. did not inspect the dispute as he is unable to pay the said bill. In this premises it is pertinent to mention that after appearing before this Forum the opposite Party took time to reconcile the matter amicably but failed. The Complainant is not in a position to pay the outstanding dues of the electric bill. On the other hand, it is settled principle of law that no one can enjoy or claim free electricity. Thus, the Forum cannot pass any order for exemption of the electric bill that consumed by the Complainant. From the materials made available in the record it is also not proved that the Opposite Party raised huge/ absurd bill or the meter as installed in the premises of the Complainant is defective one.
The Opposite Party argued that as per WBERC Notification No. 55/WBERC, under regulation clause 04.01.04 the O.P. disconnected the line after service of demand notice. The Complainant further alleged that even after disconnection the electric line the O.P. issued electric bill.
In this juncture it is pertinent to mention that the Complainant failed to pay the electric bill for a long period for which line was disconnected and for realization of outstanding dues the O.P. issued bill showing consumption of 00 units as per regulation for which we do not find any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.
Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion and the materials to its entirety we hold our considered opinion that in this case the act and conduct of the Opposite party cannot be branded as deficiency in service, and accordingly the Complaint fails.
The point No. 3 is settled against the Complainant and he is not entitled to get any relief.
Hence, it is ordered that,
ORDER
The DF case No. 17/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest. The Complainant is at liberty to prefer a fresh application to the opposite Party for obtaining new connection.
No order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
