West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/20/2016

Sri Laxmi Kanta Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Master, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Belda, CCC. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.Swapan Bhattacharya

30 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.20/2016

 

             Sri Laxmi Kanta Das, S/o Narendra Das, Vill, Maniraj, P.O. Bakhrabad, P.S. Belda,

             District Paschim Medinipur.. …………..………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1)The Station Manager, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Belda C.C.C., at Belda, P.O. & P.S. Belda, Dist. Paschim Medinipur,

2)The Chairman, W.B.S.E.D.C.L., at Bidyut Bhaban, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700091...……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Swapan Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Devi Das Mahapatra, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -30/03/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a bonafide consumer of the O.P.-W.B.S.E.D.C.L. under Belda C.C.C. having meter nos.1035040, 1035035, 1035039 and Consumer ID no.212419-134.  The complainant is agriculturist by occupation and like many villagers, he has also installed submersible pump in his landed property after complying all formalities of the W.B. Electricity Act.  The said submersible pump is the only source of cultivation and livelihood of the complainant.  He paid electric bills to the O.P. no.1 month by month since the installation of submersible pump.  The O.P. no.1 also used to issue electric bills to the complainant month by month as per consumption.  The average bill of the monthly

                                                                                                                                                             Contd……………..P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

 electric consumption of the complainant is within Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month for the month of March to October in each year and Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month for the months of November and December, January and February of each year.  All on a sudden, the complainant received a electric bill of Rs.1,51,541/-  on 10/01/2016 from the O.P. no.1 vide bill dated 09/10/2016.  After getting the said bill, the complainant became very much astonished and he met O.P. no.1 and asked him about the reason of such frivolous and imaginary bill.  The O.P. no.1 ill behaved with the complainant with some false allegation.  Thereafter the complainant went to the office of the O.P. no.1 on 18/01/2016 but he refused to meet him.  The O.P. no.1 has issued a frivolous, imaginary, unjustified and illegal bill and thereby causing deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. no.1 to issue actual bill as per consumption  after rectification of the bill dated 09/01/2016 and for an order of compensation of Rs.20,000/-  for deficiency in service and for an award of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

                  Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written statement.

                 Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the complaint is neither  maintainable nor entertainable in law, that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case, that the  Consumer Protection Act is not applicable in this case and that all the allegations made in the petition of complaint are false and frivolous.  It is also the case of the O.Ps. that the complainant used to avoid local meter reader in taking meter-reading of the disputed electric meter for which the meter reader used to lodge complaint before the O.P.   On 21/12/2015, the O.P. no.1 visited the complainants premises, took reading of the prepared bill in the month of December 2015.  After receiving the said bill, the complainant lodged one complaint before the O.Ps. on 16/01/2016 and asked to test his meter by any method and to correct the energy bill dated 09/01/2016.  Accordingly, the O.P. no.1 arranged for an enquiry through Mr. Rabindra Nath Mahata, L.M. attached to Belda CCC on 16/01/2016 by way of lamp test method.  In view of the said enquiry, it was found that the meter was running well and it was not defective.  The huge amount of consumption was not shown earlier by the complainant by way of non-cooperation in taking meter reading.  The charges made in the bill dated 09/04/2016 is the accumulation of the said charges unit due from complainants side.  In response to complainant’s application dated 15/01/2016, O.P. also sent a reply to the complainant by speed post on 22/01/2016   after completion of the said enquiry. Unfortunately complainant thereafter did not turn up.  It is stated that the bill dated 09/01/2016 is legal and valid.  It is also stated that there is no deficiency in service

                                                                                                                                                                Contd……………..P/3

 

                                                                                          ( 3 )

on the part of the O.P. and the complainant is therefore  not entitled to any reliefs,  as prayed for.

            To prove their respective cases, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exhibits 1 to 17 respectively.  On the other hand, O.P. has examined four witnesses  including O.P. no.1 Smt Pritha Mukherjee, the Station Manager of O.P. no.1 as PW-1.  The documents, relied upon by the O.Ps, have been marked as exhibits A, B and C respectively.

                                                                 Points for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?

2)Is the complainant a consumer under the C.P. Act?

3)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

4)Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

     For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

    At the time of hearing of argument, maintainability of this case has been questioned by the side of the O.P. on the ground that the present complainant is not a consumer under the provision of the C.P. Act as because he has been enjoying the services of electric connection in his said submersible pump for earning profit also apart from his agricultural purpose.  As against this, it is the case of the complainant that the complainant is a bonafide consumer of the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. under the O.P. and he has been using the service connection of electricity in his submersible pump for the purpose of agriculture and the said submersible pump is the  only source of his cultivation and livelihood.  The complainant has been examined in this case as PW-1.  From his cross-examination, we find that he has admitted that he supplies water from his said connection to other farmers occasionally in their lands measuring 1 to 1½ bighas and the name of those farmers are Anupam Das and Madan Das and for such supply of water to them, they pay Rs.500/- and Rs.450/- respectively to him for one month.  This admission goes to show that the complainant has not only been using the said submersible pump through electric service connection for his agricultural purpose but also for earning profit by supplying water from his said connection to other farmers in lieu of consideration.  Thus we find that the complainant is enjoying the said service connection of electricity for earning profits which means that he is using the same as for commercial purpose.  In that view of the matter and in

Contd……………..P/4

 

                                                                                                     ( 4 )

view of section 2 d (ii) of C.P. Act, the present complainant is not a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act and the present petition of complaint is therefore not maintainable and as such it is liable to be dismissed.

These two points are accordingly decided against the complainant.

Point nos. 3 & 4.

In view of our findings in point nos.1 & 2, we refrain ourselves from deciding as to whether the O.Ps. have any deficiency in service or not, as it is redundant.

Point no.4.

In view of our findings in points no.1 & 2, the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs, as prayed for.

All the points are accordingly decided.

In the result, the complaint case fails.  

                                                    Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                that the complaint case no.20/2016  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                         Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

              Dictated & corrected by me

                  Sd/-B. Pramanik.           Sd/- Kapot Chattopadhyay                       Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                           President                                 Member                                    President 

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur