Judgment On. 25.05.2007.
Present Sri B.K. Samanta, President
Sri Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Member
Smt. Jyotsna Sarkar, Member
This is a case for direction to take meter reading and compensation.
The petitioner’s case briefly stated is that the petitioner, for the maintenance of his livelihood by self-employment, engaged himself in running a tiny Bani Rice Mill and for that purpose. He prayed for electric connection from the OP who sanctioned 10 H.P. load industrial connection being no. I-931 and Consumer No. 1010551. So, the case cannot be considered as not maintainable being a commercial one. The petitioner used to pay regular electricity bills according to electricity consumption. On 28.01.2005, due to fault in LT line, there was no electricity. As the Petitioner had no work in his tiny Bani Rice Mill, in rode to earn something for his family, he went elsewhere and none was present in his tiny Bani Rice Mill. On the same day i.e. 28.01.2005 at about 3:05 p.m. while none was present in the tiny Bani Rice Mill, electrical authority with their men and agents including Panskura Police Station personnel forcibly entered into his Mill and vandalized all apparatus connected with the said Mill, snapped valid electrical connection between supply lines and OP supplied electrical meter, removed the said meter from fixed point and took away the same. They also took away many valuable apparatus connected with the running of time Bani Rice Mill as well as a 5 HP defective electric meter lying abandoned for long. The petitioner further submits that contravening all those sections and provisions contained in the Electricity Act, 2003. The Electrical Authorities, in convince with the Panskura Police personnel, in order to serve interest of divergent political touts for other petty gain, fabulously instituted a case against the Petitioner being Panskura Police Station case no. 10/2005 and thereafter, registered a G.R. Case No. 57 of 2005 in the Court of the Ld. Sub –Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur. The petitioner also states that in sharp contrast of the complaint., lodged by the Electrical Authority before the Panskura Police Station for taking necessary action against the Petitioner, the OP narrating the facts, sent an information along with provisional electricity bill amounting to Rs.2,19,666/- directing the Petitioner to deposit Rs.55,000/- by 01.02.2005 with the office of the OP as first installment. He submits that owing to the illegal action of the OP, he had to deposit Rs.55,000/- with the OP and again had to pray for granting bail from the Ld. SDJM, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur. The Petitioner further states that owing to illegal disconnection of the valid electrical connection no. I-931, he had to pay Rs.9,000/- for a new meter. Thereafter, challenging the action fo the OP, he submitted a representation in the office of the Divisional Manager, Tamluk Distribution Division, WBSEB, Maniktala, Purba Medinipur who in turn vide his memo dt. 11.03.2005 requested the Petitioner to visit his office on 196.03.2005 for final hearing of the provisional assessment bill. He attended the hearing and narrated the illegalities of the OP in detail. The said office passed on order to send final assessment bill to the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of the OP, moved an application in the form of CRR No. 11238 of 200 before the Hon’ble High Court in Kolkata and intimated the same to all concerned. He also filed a CRAN No. 1500 of 2005 before the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata and the petition is pending for hearing. The OP, after taking first installment and cost of new electrical meter, re-connected the electrical line and in frequent interval, they took meter reading and used to send bill accordingly. However, after April 2005 they stopped taking meter reading and sending bills. Therefore, the complainant prays for direction to the OP for taking meter reading and sending bills accordingly and to pay compensation Rs.30,000/- in all.
The Op contested the case by filing a written objection wherein he denied the material allegation of the case and also states that the case is not maintainable. He further states that complainant is a consumer under Gourangapur Gr. E/S bearing S/C No. 1/931 and consumer No. 1-01055. There was no power at the time of inspection due to fault in 11 KV overhead lines. Though the petitioner was present at the time of the of inspection, he managed to flee away from the clutches of police personnel afterwards. During inspection, the OP found that one A/5 H.P. motor was running by the petitioner by direct hooking from the nearby WBSEB L.T. main by passing the energy meter. Besides this, they also noticed several other irregularities. The inspection was conducted in presence of police personnel and two local witnesses. Subsequently he lodged F.I.R. with the Panskura Police Station against the petitioner. Thereafter, they dis-connected the electric connection on 28.01.2005. They could not deliver the notice/copy of inspection r3eport, seizure list etc. to the petitioner as he was absconding. They sent a penal bill amounting to Rs. 2,19,660.00 to the complainant on 31.01.2005 along with a quotation for Rs.9,000/- being the cost of damaged meter, The complainant paid Rs.55,000/- as part of the penal bill and Rs. 9,000/- as damaged meter cost. Final assessment was held at the chamber of the S.E. & D.M. Tamluk (D) Division on 19.03.2005 where the complainant was also present. It was finally assessed at Rs. 1,66,019.00 and the consumer was intimated to pay balance amount of Rs.1,11,019.00 vide memo dt. 07.04.2005. However, the consumer did not pay the same. Hence, his connection was dis-connected on 30.04.2005. The OP states that until and unless the balance amount is paid, electric connection of the consumer cannot be re-connected on 30.04.2005. The OP states that until and unless the balance amount is paid, electric connection of the consumer cannot be re-connected and if the consumer is enjoying electricity, that is unauthorized and the OP may lodge another FIR, if found guilty. Under the circumstances, the OP prays for dismissal of the case with compensatory cost.
Points for decision
Against above background, we are to consider the following:-
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the complainant entitled to any relief as prayed for?
Decision
Point No.1- It is admitted by the OP that the petitioner is a consumer under him. Therefore, there is no scope of any ambiguity about maintainability of the case this stage.
Point No.2. The petitioner in his petition of complaint states that electric line is in running condition but the OP, WBSEB is not taking meter reading and sending bills for the same. So, he prays for direction to the OP for recording the meter reading and providing the bill.
On the other hand, the OP submits that due to nonpayment of rest of the penal bill for theft of electricity, the electric connection of the Petitioner was dis-connected o 30.04.2005 and if there is any electric line, that is unauthorized for which, he may file another F.I.R. In such circumstances, he is not in a position to take meter reading and provide bill for the same at this stage.
It is admitted by both the parties that OP lodged an FIR against the petitioner for theft of electricity for which a GR case No. 57/05 is pending before the Ld. S.D.J.M. Tamluk for consideration of charge. The petitioner filed a C.R.R. case no. 1238/2005 before the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata for quashing the FIR which has been disposed of. In the order, the Hon’ble Court has declined to quash the FIR. The petitioner preferred revisional petition being no. C.R.A.N. No. 1500/-05 before the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata against the order of CRR No. 1238/05, which is pending for hearing. It is also admitted by both the parties that a penal bill amounting to Rs. 1,66,019.00 was imposed on the petitioner by the OP for theft of electricity energy out of which, the petitioner has paid Rs. 55,000/- for having grant of bail and rest was due and the electric line was restored on payment of Rs. 9,000/- being damaged meter cost. It is the case of the OP that due to nonpayment of rest of the penal bill, the electric line of the petitioner was again dis-connected on 30.04.2005.
Admittedly, the petitioner appealed before the appellate authority of electricity board against the penal bill for theft of electricity, as alleged by the OP. The appellate Authority after hearing, passed on order on 23.05.2006 directing re-connection of electricity on payment of full claimed amount. But the petitioner filed a write petition-W.P. No. 16981 (W) of 2006 against the above cited order of the Appellate Authority. So practically, the order of the Appellate Authority regarding re-connection has been challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Court and that case is pending for hearing.
In such circumstances, it would not be proper to pass any order regarding taking reading of meter by the Electricity dept. as the matter of restoration/re-connection is pending for hearing before the Hon’ble Court. In our considered view any order passed by this forum for the purpose will amount to interference on the proceedings of the Hon’ble Court. So, considering the critical aspect of the matter, we refrain from passing any order. Thus, this point is disposed of accordingly.
Point No.3. On the basis of foregoing discussions and material on record, we are of opinion that the case of the petitioner fails at this stage.
Ordered
Hence,
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Op without cost.
