FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:-This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that he is an aged person and so he entrusted to look after this case to his son Kali Sankar Bhowmik. It is alleged that the complainant has obtained the connection being no. 163170014 through Sujan Bhowmik of Mogra electric supply. It is also the case of the complainant that the electric meter provided by WBSEDCL to the complainant was defective and as a result of which the meter reading was not displayed and this matter was reported to the office of the WBSEDCL and inspite of having knowledge of defective meter the WBSEDCL who is the opposite party of this case on 10.10.2014 had sent an electric bill of Rs. 4722/- and after receiving the said bill the complainant raised objection and reported the same in writing to the office of the WBSEDCL. According to the case of the complainant the opposite party has not cooperated with the complainant. It is stated that thereafter Kali Sankar Bhowmik son of the complainant (who has another electric connection and who is looking after this case) noticed that the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected and thereafter the WBSEDCL again restored the connection after payment of the bill. It is alleged that again the meter of the complainant became defective but the WBSEDCL who is the opposite party of this case had not taken any steps. It is also alleged that after few months the opposite party side had sent another bill over which it has been endorsed with red letter “D.P.” and then the complainant has filed another application on 25.5.2018 to the office of the opposite party. It is further alleged that the opposite party once again has sent another bill claiming Rs. 1,06,556/- which is totally illegal and for all these reasons the complainant has filed this case with the prayer which has been depicted in the prayer of the complaint petition.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to repair the defective meter and pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost and to give any other relief or reliefs as deem fit and proper.
Defense Case:-The opposite partycontested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that the present complainant (Kali Sankar Bhowmick) is not at all consumer to the office of the opposite party and till now the service line stands in the name of Susanta Kumar Bhowmick and he is paying electric bill and he is still in alive. So, there is no locus standi to file this case by his son against opposite party. The existing meter of said service line is in good condition and the wheel of the meter is properly moving and the existing meter was installed on 25.11.2013 by replacement of previous defective meter and the consumption bill dt. 10.10.2014 raised as per meter reading of the said healthy meter for consumption period 25.5.2014 to 9.9.2014 and the unit was consumed 675 which is quiet consistent with consumption of corresponding month for previous year consumed 646 unit. The complainant did not paid said consumption bill and as a result the service line was disconnected for nonpayment of energy bill and after payment of this bill on 3.7.2015 the said service line was reconnected but the status remains as disconnected in database as the reconnection memo was not prepared by consumer and for that reason raising of bill was stopped after generation of two no. zero unit consumption for disconnection bill as per rules and norms and on that time consumer did not informed anything about this and stayed silent although the consumption was continued. On 25.5.2018 the consumer Susanta Kumar Bhowmick applied for generation of consumption bill after detection of the matter by meter reader and the said consumption bill was obtained from meter reading from 2006 to 13032 and for 11026 consumption unit and the said consumption bill was raised for the consumption period of around 4 years for 20756 unit per year and 689 unit per quarter of which perfectly reflex the consumption bill of the said consumer and the consumer Susanta Kumar Bhowmick did not raised any written complaint or appeal in respect if said consumption bill before the opposite party office. So, in the circumstances the complainant case will not entitle to get any relief as per prayer of the complaint petition and the present case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
In respect of the above noted three issues it is important to note that the opposite party after appearing in this case and filing W/V raised the point that this case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action for filing this case and this case is barred by limitation.
Regarding this issue the points of argument highlighted by complainant side and opposite party have been considered on the background of pleadings adopted by the parties and also on the backdrop of the evidence given by the parties of this case and it appears that the complainant, Kali Sankar Bhowmick is not a consumer in respect of the alleged connection being no. 163170014 and the said connection is lying in the name of the Susanta Kumar Bhowmick who is the father of the complainant. This matter is clearly indicating that the complainant Kali Sankar Bhowmick has not accrued any right for institution of this case. In this regard it is important to note that Susanta Kumar Bhowmick who is the actual consumer in respect of above noted connection has also not given any power of attorney in favour of complainant Kali Sankar Bhowmick. No such power of attorney has been filed in this case. All these factors are clearly indicating that complainant is not a consumer in respect of the above noted electric connection and he has no right to file this case and so it is also crystal clear that in this case there is no cause of action.
Moreover on close scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties it appears that in this case the complainant have raised the allegation regarding billing dispute. Now the question is whether this District Commission has any right and jurisdiction for entertaining such billing dispute or not? Over this issue the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Division Bench in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. &Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad which is decided in Civil Appeal no. 5466 of 2012 on 1.7.2013 is very important. In the said case Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to held that a bare reading of the aforesaid Sections makes it abundantly clear that
- The intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the consumer for a under the CP Act. The Electricity Act also impliedly does not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora;
- On the contrary, it saves the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Railways Act, 1989;
- By non-obstante clauses, it has been provided that if anything in the Electricity Act, Rules or Regulations is inconsistent with any provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, it shall have no effect; and
- Provisions of the Electricity Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. The act supplements the existing redressal forum, namely, the Consumer Fora.
The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is clearly depicting that billing dispute is not maintainable and this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.
Thus all the above noted three points of consideration are decided against the complainant.
As this complaint case if found not maintainable and it is found that this District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such billing dispute, this District Commission is of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case and also there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
For all these reasons the points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 are also decided against the complainant.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that the complaint case being no. 139 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
No order is passed as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
