This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that the complainant applied for new connection for his premises in the year 1996. In reply to his application being no. NGS/55/94(DOM), one quotation was issued by the Station-in-charge on 12.9.1996 for electric connection and it was directed in the said quotation for depositing Rs. 900/-. On 14.10.1996 the complainant has deposited the said amount in the head of “Other Receipt” being no. OR/Y/96/048300, OR/Y/96/048299, OR/Y/96/048298 respectively. Accordingly opposite party company was pleased to provide electric connection in the premises of the complainant having consumer ID NO. 16204224 and the opposite party no. 1 has received the amount from the complainant through bills since 1998 under the head of “Domestic Meter” and suddenly in the year 1999 the complainant received a bill for the period of November 1998, December 1998 and January 1999 computing the rate of commercial connection from the opposite party under “Commercial Head” and thereafter the complainant numerous times visited the office of the opposite party no. 1 for enquiry but not a single time he received any proper reason except oral promise to look into the matter and the complainant have not made any application before the office for conversation of his electric meter from “Domestic” to “Commercial” but unfortunately without any intimation from the end of the opposite party no. 1 raised bill in respect of the above referred meter under commercial head.
The complainant also states that on the basis of oral assurance the complainant keep paying for next 5 months at the rate of commercial connection but after that due to non fulfillment of his query the complainant abstained from paying the amount raised in the subsequent bills raised by the opposite party no. 1 and subsequently his connection was disconnected by the opposite party no. 1 and after few years in the month of December, 2016 the complainant applied for reconnection of his service connection which was duly received by the office of the opposite party no. 1 on 14.12.2016 and further in reply to his letter the opposite party no. 1 issued another letter dt. 29.12.2016 stating to deposit the outstanding due amounting to Rs. 2406/- otherwise they won’t reconnect the service and having no other alternative the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2406/- along with Rs. 100/- for disconnection and reconnection charge on 17.1.2017.
The complainant also states that at the time of reconnection it was observed that the meter was not working properly and for that reason another communication being memo no. 5001522878/UQO_REP/02/3409 was received by the complainant directing to deposit further amount of Rs. 622/- and accordingly the amount of Rs. 622/- along with Rs. 100/- was again deposited on 22.5.2017 for new meter and disconnection and reconnection charge and surprisingly a new bill amounting to Rs. 15,938/- has been raised by the opposite party no. 1 under commercial head and thereafter the complainant sent a notice through his ld. Advocate requesting the opposite party no. 1 company that the opposite party no. 1 has consumed the entire bill amount since 1998-1999 under the Head Commercial is totally illegal and to refund the excess amount received as compared to Domestic category connection and in response thereof the opposite party company served a vague reply notice upon the complainant denying their illegality of the raised bills and threatened the complainant to pay the amount otherwise they will disconnect without intimating prior and subsequently the opposite party no. 1 again disconnected the connection of the complainant without being heard.
The complainant also states that the aforesaid acts on the part of the opposite party company constitute sheer deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practiced of the grossest kind resulting in severe mental agony, anxiety and harassment of the complainant besides the huge financial loss he had to suffer there for since 1998 and it is well known that the commercial units are much costlier than the domestic category and the acts and attitude of the opposite party company indicate that it is somehow trying to squeeze the complainant by raising bills under commercial head instead of domestic connection and the cause of action for presenting the instant case arose since November, 1998 to till date and the same has been continuing thereafter.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to restore the connection being Consumer ID No. 162042243 standing in the name of the complainant to domestic category and refund a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as the opposite party no. 1 has received excess. Comparing to domestic category and to pay sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, anxiety and harassment and to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards litigation cost.
The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them. These opposite parties submit that the complainant’s original meter vide service connection no. N-10075 was a commercial meter against consumer ID NO. 162042243 and the complainant also sent a letter on 14.12.2016 to the opposite party no. 1 Station Manager Nabagram Group Electric supply (W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Co. Ltd.) requesting him for reconnection of his service connection against consumer ID NO. 162042243 and the complainant had been using the commercial meter along for his business and profiteering purpose and the opposite party supply demanded electric charges from the complainant according to the consumption of electricity and L.P.S.C. (Interest) charges amounting to Rs. 15,938.17 paisa by new bill raised after reconnection of consumer ID NO. 162042243 and to misguide the opposite party the complainant has submitted that the previous commercial meter was lost and for that reason he lodged a G.D. and to escape the payment of arrear amount for the commercial meter the complainant made allegation against the opposite party in respect of negligence and deficiency of service and according to the Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant is not a consumer because of the fact that his meter was commercial and he did not pay the electric charges for the same and for that opposite party disconnected the electric connection from his premises due to fact that the complainant did not pay the electric bill and without paying the electric charges for the commercial meter the complainant has prayed for new domestic meter which is malafide and with the intention to get undue advantages which is illegal also and the opposite party has rightly decided to disconnect the commercial meter against consumer ID NO. 162042243 and originally the meter was a commercial and the complainant has introduced the domestic meter for misguiding the opposite parties to create obscurity and the complainant has not made payment of electric bill of the meter no. (HH) 151212 now lost inspite of the bill raised by the opposite parties and the opposite parties have rightly disconnected the electric line of the complainant for nonpayment of electric charges and if the complainant pays the dues for the electric charges, the opposite parties are ready to give electric connection to him.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.
- In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite party.
- Both the complainant and the opposite party are residence/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 2,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
- The complainant states that he is the bona fide consumer of opposite party no. 1 as the complainant applied for new connection for his premises in the year 1996. In reply one quotation was issued by Station-in-charge and the complainant deposited the said amount of
Rs. 900/- on 14.10.1996 in the head of other receipt being nos. OR/4/96/048300, OR/4/96/048299, OR/4/96/048298 respectfully. Accordingly, the opposite party was pleased to provide electric connection under domestic head being service connection no. 10075 and the consumer ID no. 162042243 and till October 1998 the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 received the payment of electric charge from the complainant under “domestic head”.
The disputes cropped up when the complainant received a bill for the period of November 1998, December 1998 and January 1999 under Commercial head.
The complainant states and contends that the complainant on numerous occasion visited the office of the opposite party no. 1 for enquiring but the complainant did not received any positive reason except or oral promises to look into the matter. The complainant further states that the complainant has not made any request before the opposite party no. 1 for conversion of his electric meter from domestic to commercial but without any prior intimation the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 raised bill in respect of above consumer ID under “Commercial Head”. The complainant states and argued that thereafter on the basis of oral assurance the complainant keep paying bills for next five months at the rate of commercial connection but after that due to non fulfillment of his energy the complainant abstained from paying the amount raised in the subsequent bills raised by the opposite party no. 1 and subsequently the connection of the complainant was disconnected by the opposite party no. 1. The complainant further argued and states that after elapsing few years in the month of December, 2016 the complainant applied for reconnection of his service connection through a letter dt. 14.12.2016 before the official of the opposite party no. 1 and in reply the opposite party no. 1 by a letter dt. 29.12.2016 stating to deposit the outstanding due amounting to Rs. 2406/- and otherwise the opposite party no. 1 will not reconnect the service connection of the complainant. Having no other alternative the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2406/- and along with disconnection and reconnection charge of Rs. 100/- on 11.01.2017. Thereafter the complainant observed that the meter was not working properly and for that the complainant was directed by the opposite parties to deposit further amount of Rs. 622/-. Accordingly the complainant deposited on 22.5.2017 Rs. 622/- along with Rs. 100/- the disconnection and reconnection charges. Thereafter surprisingly a new bill amounting to Rs. 15,938/- has been raised by the opposite party no. 1 under commercial head. The complainant sent a notice through his ld. Lawyer and in response of the letter of the complainant the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 served a vague reply denying their illegally raising bill under commercial head and threatened the complainant to pay the entire amount otherwise the opposite party will disconnect the service connection with out any intimation and the opposite party no. 1 subsequently again disconnected the service connection of the complainant without giving any opportunity to the complainant.
The complainant states and argued that the act on the part of the opposite party company constitutes sheer deficiency and as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party resulting in severe mental agony, anxiety and harassment to the complainant.
After receiving the summons the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 appeared and contested the case by filing written version. The opposite parties had taken plea that the case of the complainant is non maintainable in law.
The complainant states and submits that the complainant applied for an electric connection for his premises in the year 1996 for which he paid Rs. 900/- to the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 install the opposite party company was pleased to install electric connection under “domestic head” in the premises of the complainant being service connection no. 10075 and the consumer ID no. 162042243.
Thereafter it appears in the case record that the complainant files interrogatories and the opposite parties replied against the interrogatories of the complainant wherefrom it reveals that opposite party replied against clause 2. That initially the service connection was issued for domestic purpose. Against the clause 3 of the interrogatories of the complainant the opposite party answered that the consumer may came to the office with an application with residential documents and identity proof and thereafter the intending consumer served with the quotation thereof and enquired the matter and if it is found OK the service connection was given to the consumer. The reply of opposite party in clause 4 of the interrogatories of the complainant opposite party answered the same.
The opposite party replied against the point 6 is that the application form contains column for marking of domestic/commercial to be filled up by the applicants. Opposite party replied against point no. 7 that the application copy regarding the connection of electricity available upto 10 years maximum and the original application is not available because it is of the year 1996 which is more than 23 years. In respect of reply against point no. 8 the opposite party answered that at the time of effecting new service connection W.B.S.E.D.C.L. issued one yellow card mentioning name and address of consumer meter no. and date of installation of meter. Regarding point no. 9 the opposite party replied that since one software updatation since June 2014, the bills prior to the period it is not obtainable. So, duplicate bills could not be produce as it is kept for 10 years. Opposite party replied against para 11 of the interrogatories of the complaint that according to Electricity Act, 2003 a consumer has apply for change of purpose (here commercial to domestic) is done. The opposite party replied against column 12 is that the question of this para is not clear. Para 13 of the column the opposite party replied that the consumer applied for reconnection of disconnection line for commercial purpose. No record could be found by the opposite party to that regard the application of the complainant for change of purpose. Para 14 of the column the opposite party answered that no documents beyond 10 years is maintainable. The opposite party replied against point no. 17 and states that consumer has to apply in plain paper stating the reason for conversion clearly and one identity prove to be attached with the prescribed format.
The opposite party could not answer against para 16 of the column as it is not clear to the opposite party. Opposite party replied in para 18 of the column that since inception of Electricity Act, 2003 no conversion is done without the application of the consumer.
The opposite parties had also taken a plea that the original meter vide service connection no. N-10075 and consumer ID no. 162042243 was a commercial meter. The complainant states and submits that till October 1998 the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 had received the payment of electric charges for the premises of the complainant under “domestic head”. The complainant states and argued that suddenly in the year 1999 the complainant received a bill for the period of November 1998, December 1998 and January 1999 under commercial head.
In this event the complainant states and argued that the complainant have not made any application before the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 for conversion of his electric meter from “domestic to commercial” and thereafter the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 has taken various plea to establish that the complainant had been using the electric connection for his business and profiting purpose and finally the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 taken a plea. That the opposite parties have not done any negligence and deficiency of service as per electricity act and have rightly disconnected the electric line of the complainant and have not raised any illegal bills.
After perusing the case record complaint petition, affidavit in chief, written version, interrogatories and brief notes of argument and after hearing both parties we are in the opinion that the acts and conduct of the opposite party constitute sheer deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties threatened the complainant to pay the entire amount otherwise the opposite parties will disconnect the service connection of the complainant without giving any opportunity to the complainant.
In the instant case let us consider how for the prayer of the complainant can be taken for consideration that there is deficiency of service on the part of the complainant.
The opposite party electric department has strongly argued that the complainant is not a consumer according to Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the opposite party has not committed any negligence and deficiency of service as per Electricity Act in disconnecting the electricity line of the complainant.
The opposite party also argued that practically it is a billing dispute which is not liable under the jurisdiction of this Forum. The opposite parties state that they have always complied with the orders of the ld. Forum and filed evidence in chief and prayer before the Forum for dismissal of the complainant case.
Thereafter in reply question no. 2 of the interrogatories the complainant argued that the opposite parties admitted that initially the electric service connection towards the complainant was issued for “domestic purpose” and not for “commercial purpose”. In reply to question no. 6 and 11 of the interrogatories of the complainant. The complainant argues that the opposite parties categorically stated the procedure for converting the electric connection from domestic to commercial bill the opposite parties have failed to produce any sort of documents from which it transpires that the complainant complied with such proceedings and such is admitted by the opposite party in reply to question no. 13 of the interrogatories of the complainant.
After going through the affidavit in chief, interrogatories and brief notes of argument of both parties we are in the opinion that the acts and conduct of the opposite parties tantamount to gross deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties which resulting in severe mental agony, anxiety and harassment to the complainant besides the financial monetary loss the complainant suffered since 1998.
The decisions made herein before it is crystal clear from the above discussions that the opposite parties are deficient in providing service to its complaint as such the complaint petition is deserved to be allowed with cost and compensation and the complainant has able to prove his case.
Hence,
it is
ordered
that the complaint case being no. 253 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite parties with a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are directed to restore the connection being consumer ID NO. 162042243 standing in the name of the complainant to Domestic category.
The opposite party no. 1 is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 25,000/- as the opposite party no. 1 has received from the complainant excess comparing to Domestic Category.
The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant for his mental agony, anxiety and harassment of the complainant.
All the payments are to be made within 45 days from the date of this order.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties.
