The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a consumer under the O.P. No.1, WBSEDCL and applied for enhancement of load of electricity from 1.50 KVA to 3.70 KVA by paying Rs.1700/- on 17.04.2009 in his premises. The O.P. No.1 issued money receipt being No.061183 dated 25.04.2009.
It is very pathetic that petitioner was provided with only an increase of .26 KVA instead of actual requirement, for which petitioner was forced to pay extra amount of Rs.1499/-. It is definitely unfair trade practice and deficiency of service as per C.P. Act, 1986. The complainant again put another application for further enhancement to 5.99 KVA but O.P. intentionally supplied 1.76 KVA. However, the complainant paid further amount of Rs.7800/- vide money receipt No.132200498397 dated15.7.2014 against the quotation. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.8501/- towards security deposit vide receipt No.132000498348 dated15.07.2014.That it is most unjust, unqualified and imperiously autocratic on the part of the above O.Ps. to constantly, fleece the complainant as consumer via demand, demand and demand without relooking their deficiency and improper leanings to retrospectively adjusting the extra amount the O.ps. have improperly collected unreasonably and beyond the actual amount desirable from the consumer/complainant.
That several correspondences were made on the subject to all the O.Ps. as categorically shown in the respective column of this complaint petition but no concrete steps had been taken up to salvage the difficulties encountered by this complainant. That on 6.5.2016 a letter sent to Divisional Manager, Chandannagore Division but no effect. At last the complainant wrote a letter to the Grievance Redressal Officer on 25.5.2016 but it is also went abasing. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Ld. Forum praying for relief with a direction to the O.P. for liquidated damages twice than the unadjusted amount excessively deducted together with interest @ 18% p.a. , to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and to pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost.
The O.P. No.1 contested this case by filing written version denying the entire material allegation as leveled against him. O.P. No.1 submits that petitioner Pradip Kumar Pramanik filed an application for changing the consumer name as father and also prayed for extension of connecting load from 1.5. KW to 3.7 KW and the same was allowed and simultaneously the quotation for the said extension was issued and for which Nirmal Kumar Pramanik deposited the said quotation amounting to Rs.1700/- on 01.4.2015 and the said amount was inserted into database on 1.4.2015.
This O.P. also submits that it is not correct that that the petitioner was provided only 0.26 KW instead of actual requirement for which the petitioner was bound to pay Rs.1499/-. The factual position is that according to the policy of WBSEDCL one quotation based on the amount of three months consumption was served in favour of the consumer for realization/updating the security deposit in which four several due date was fixed on four consecutive months. But unfortunately the said consumer/complainant failed to get the scope through the security deposit amount of Rs.1700/- inserted in to data base on 1.4.2015.
The O.P. No.1 further submits that petitioner Pradip Kumar Pramanik applied for further extension of load on 4.7.2014. Accordingly, one quotation was issued for Rs.16,301/- ( Rs.7800/- for HSC and Rs.8501/- for security deposit) without adjustment of previous S/D amount i.e. Rs.1700/- and Mr. Pramanik deposited the whole amount on 15.7.2014. But unfortunately the complainant failed to get the opportunity though the security deposit of Rs.1700/- was inserted into database dated 1.4.2015 respectively.
The WBSEDCL is an autonomous body of Government of West Bengal and its activity is to supply the essential ingredients of modern technologies. The supply of electricity and it is guided by the norms of Electricity Act. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Hence, the case.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition. So, it is needless to discuss. The OP filed a petition dated 11.10.2017 to accept the written version as his evidence on affidavit.
Both sides filed affidavit in chief and written notes of arguments which are taken into consideration during the passing of final order.
The argument as advanced by the advocates of the parties heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Pradip Kumar Pramanik is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Pradip Kumar Pramanik is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant being the customer is consuming electricity as provided by the OP Company and he is paying bills so the petitioner is a consumer of the OP and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.
The O.P. herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The O.P. Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffers from paying accumulated units at a higher rate and fails to provide powers to the consumers after taking quotation money. As a result the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy before the appropriate Forums. The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the OP Company tantamount to deficiency of service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.
The case of the complainant is that the father of the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1700/- only as quotation money dated 15.4.2009 for enhancing the load from 1.5.KVA to 3.70 KW but after scrutiny he found that the load has been extended 1.5 KW to 1.76 KW only. Again this petitioner filed another application for enhancement of load upto 5.99 KW and paid an amount of Rs.7800/- on 15.7.2014 as quotation money and further amount of Rs.8501/- only towards the security amount. After scrutiny he detected that his load has been extended from 1.76 KW to 5.99 KW and not from 3.70 KW to 5.99 KW. Dispute cropped up between the complainant and the O.P. when the complainant detected that for enhancement of same quantum of load the O.P. has taken fees twice.
The O.P. in his argument stated that this consumer applied for changing of ownership of meter from the name of Satkari Pramanik to the name of Pradip Kr. Pramanik with demand load 1.5KW. Before changing the ownership the father of this complainant applied for extension of load from 1.5KW to 3.70 KW and deposited Rs.1700/- on 25.4.2009. Again this complainant applied for extension of load on 4.7.2014 and another quotation was issued for Rs.16,301/- for load extension and security purpose which was deposited on 15.7.2014. According to norms of WBSEDCL one quotation based on the amount of three months consumption which was served in favour of consumer for realization/updating the security deposit. For which several due dates were fixed on four consecutive months but the consumer had been failed to avail the chances although the said security deposit amount of Rs.1700/- was inserted into database dated 1.4.2015 and the norms also cleared that if it is found refund of additional security deposit which is based on the calculation of the amount i.e. on three months consumption if any lying against this consumer that may be refunded through energy bill subject to the policy matter. So, the O.P. firstly changed the ownership of consumer according to application, secondly enhanced the load according to norms of WBSEDCL after compliance of quotation amount by the consumer/complainant and thirdly Rs.1700/- deposited by the father of this complainant was adjusted/ refunded through energy bills. The O.P. further assailed that he/she has not been deducted any higher amount at the load issued lesser than demand and/or have not been liquidated damages twice than the adjusted amount excessively deducted together with interest, so the answering O.P. is not liable to pay any compensation or reliefs prayed by this complainant.
After perusing a letter dated 4.2.2015 of O.P. it appears that present quantum of contractual load is 5.99 KVA( 5093KW) and it is capable to carry two numbers of 2 ton AC load but if drawal of contractual load beyond 5099 KVA( 5093) is found then action can be taken as per rules and regulations of WBERC. Earlier applied load is 1.5KW and extension for load from 1.5 KW to 3.7KW and paid Rs.1700/- for such extension. But due to some unwanted error or fault this extension of load was not updated on electric bill. Thereafter, when another extension of load was done as per application of the complainant and since earlier extension of load was not updated, so quotation has been generated as per procedure 29(c) with details of earnest money, load enhancement charge and security deposit. Due to some unwanted error or fault this extension of load was not updated on electric bill. But the load has been provided to carry 3.7 KW load. The boon of contention of dispute is that the father of the complainant once paid to enhance the load from 1.5 KW to 3.7 KW and subsequently this complainant prayed for extension from 3.7 KW to 5.99 KW. But the OP extended the load from 1.5 KW to 1.76 KW instead of 1.5 KW to 3.7 KW and later on extended load from 1.76 KW to 5.99 KW and took money from this complainant. So from the face of the case record it is crystal clear that the complainant compelled to pay twice for extending same quantum of load. The quotation dated 24.4.2009 clearly speaks that the OP received a sum of Rs.1700/- for extending load from 1.5 KW to 3.7 KW. The bill dated 02.03.2012 speaks that connected load is 1.50 KW and the bill dated 13.06.2012 depicts the connected load as 1.76 KVA and lastly the bill dated 16.06.2016 transpires the connected load as 5.99KVA. So from the comparison of bills it is transparent that OP extended the connected load from 1.5 KW to 1.76KVA and later on it extended from 1.76 KVA to 5.99 KVA. The document dated 4.7.2014 showed the deduction of KVA to KW. From the said calculation 1.76 KVA= 1496 KW & 5.99KVA =5091.5 KW. The agent on behalf of the OP as well as the concerned Station manager during the period of argument stated that they have done in accordance with rule adopted by the OP Company and the complainant is confused regarding the conversion of KW to KVA. But it is the actual problem that the complainant several times knocked the door of the OP and made several correspondences but the OP remained silent and never cared to make any reply at the utterance of this complainant that compelled the complainant to prefer the recourse of this Forum praying reliefs as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition. The OP also admitted that due to some unwanted error or fault this extension of load was not updated on electric bill. Opposite party also failed to adjust the excess amount which he has taken from this complainant. No document in that respect produced by the OP to substantiate his claim which he adjusted.
It is true that having regard to the laudable object behind the legislation of the Act, to protect the interest of consumers, literal interpretation has to be placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper technical approach.
From the above discussion we may safely conclude that the complainant suffered at the behest of negligence on the part of the opposite party. So the opposite party cannot escape the mistake or omission done by him. The Regional Grievance Redressal Officer of Hooghly division also failed to take any action after getting complaint from this complainant. The opposite party is deficient in providing service towards its consumers for which consumers have no other alternative except filing complaint before this Forum.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant abled to prove his case. So the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation to this consumer.
ORDER
Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.142/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party, with a litigation cost amounting to Rs.8000/-.
The Opposite Party is directed to refund the quantum of fees & security amount for extending load from 1.76 KW to 3.76 KW.
The said OP is also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- to this complainant for mental pain and agony.
All the payments are to be made within 45 days from the date of order.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer legal Aid Account.
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 & necessary action.
