DATE OF FILING : 26/07/2013
DATE OF S/R : 22/08/2013
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29/09/2014
CHALANTIKA,
a partnership firm, having it s factory at
16, Bigha Bagan Bari, Village & P.O. Kalora,
P.S. Domjur, District - Howrah and also office at
176/1, G.T. Road (N), P.O. Salkia, P.S. Malipanchghora,
District – Howrah, being represented by its one of the Partner
(1) Krishna Kumar Lohia, son of late Ramji Lal Lohia,
residing at 176/1, G.T. Road (N),
P.O. Salkia, P.S. Malipanchghora,
District - Howrah.--------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1) The Station Manager,
Domjur CCC,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Vill + PO + P.S. Domjur,
Howrah – 711 405.
2) The Divisional Engineer,
office of the Divisional Engineer,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.,
Howrah Division – I,
13, Netaji Subhas Road, Howrah – 711 101.
3) The Chairman,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.,
having its Heard office at Bidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata 700 091.-----------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case filed by the complainant namely Krishan Kr. Lohia represented on behalf of the Chalantika a partnership firm U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) against the o.ps. i.e., WBSEDCL Authority alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary direction to be given upon the O.Ps. for revision of the bills for the March, 2013 and onwards together with restoration of normal power supply along with other relief/s as he entitled to.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant represented on behalf of the Chalantika a partnership firm is a bonafide consumer of connected load 49 H.P. being consumer no.1052214 ( S .C. no. BR/1/5545 ) has raised objection against energy bills sent average basis for the month of March,2013 and onwards when the business was running a turmoil condition. Several correspondences were made by the complainant / or representative with the o.ps. but all attempts are in vain and the power supply of the factory premises of the complainant was disconnected on f28-05-2013 on account of non payment of outstanding dues. Hence the case.
3. The o.ps. i.e., WBSEDCL Authority vide their written version contended interalia that the complainant is a commercial firm and runs industry / business for profit sharing purpose and as such the complainant is not a consumer within meaning/ scope and ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such it has no latches, stands to invoke the jurisdiction of the Forum for which the Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the case. These o.ps. i.e., WBSEDCL Authority also opined that the consumer is recognized as industrial connection / consumer with contractual load of 49 HP and disconnection of power supply was made upon default of payment of energy bill which subsequently raised as door lock basis to Rs. 33,544/- for 4962 units as per consumption of corresponding month for previous year as per provision of law followed by regulation 4.1.1 of the notification 36 of WBERC, the supply line was disconnected on 28-05-2013. Under such circumstances, these answering o.ps. opined that they have no latches on their part and the service deficiency as raised by the complainant categorically denied and the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
4. Upon pleading the point of determination are as follows :
i) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?
ii) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. POINT NO. 1
It is the persistent claim of the o.ps. that the complainant is not a consumer as defined U/S 2(10(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that he is running the industry by profit making business having running a factory under name and style ‘Chalantika’ which is registered as partnership business.
6. On scrutiny of the complaint filed by the complainant we trace clear admission that he
carries a business dealing with the business manufacturing of quality mill board for commercial purpose and has earned reputation in the field with running a industry with the help of taking industrial load of 49 HP from the lincensee ( herein WBSEDCL Authority having commercial meter bearing consumer no. 1042214 SC no. BR/f1/5545 ) at the factory 16, Bigha Bagan Bari, P.O. Kalora, P.S. Domjur, Howrah, and that to agreed for running a factory ( para 3 of page 3 ).
7. In view of such glaring admission we are constrained to hold that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as he is not the consumer as per definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 where running for commercial purpose for carrying a business of profit making other than exclusively for self employment, such person is excluded from the purview of C.P. Act, 1986. In anywhere of the complaint petition the complainant never disclosed that he is running the factory for maintenance of his livelihood. Naturally we are of the clear view that the case is not maintainable and required to be dismissed.
8. Point nos. 2 & 3
In view of the observation made above we gave our further views that the
elaborate discussion over the erratic bills sent by the o.ps. to the complainant are redundant as the complaint itself is not maintainable.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 250 of 2013 ( HDF 250 of 2013 ) not being maintainable is dismissed on contest against o.ps. but in view of the circumstances without costs.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( P. K. Chatterjee )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
