West Bengal

Purba Midnapur

CC/9/2017

Sri Ashok Kumar Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent Engineer & Circle Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Anindita Santra

22 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PURBA MEDINIPUR
ABASBARI, P.O. TAMLUK, DIST. PURBA MEDINIPUR,PIN. 721636
TELEFAX. 03228270317
 
Complaint Case No. CC/9/2017
 
1. Sri Ashok Kumar Kar
S/O. Late Hari Charan Kar, Vill. Town Sankarara, P.S. Tamluk.
Purba Medinipur
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Superintendent Engineer & Circle Manager
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Tamluk (D) Circle, Salgachia, Tamluk, PIN : 721636
Purba Medinipur
West Bengal
2. The Regional Manager
Westbengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Purba Medinipur Regional Office, Bijli Bhawan, Daharpur, Tamluk, PIN : 721636
Purba Medinipur
West Bengal
3. The Divisional Engineer (Comml)
Westbengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Tamluk(D) Circle, Salgachia, Tamluk PIN : 721636
Purba Medinipur
West Bengal
4. The Chairman
Westbengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhavan, Block - DJ, Sector - II, Bidhannagar, 700091
Purba Medinipur
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Smt. Bandana Roy PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Syeda Shahnur Ali,LLB MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Sajal Kanti Jana MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Anindita Santra, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 22 Mar 2017
Final Order / Judgement

By :  SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT         

The case of the petitioner in brief is that he is the proprietor of RAJA ICE and he runs his said business for his livelihood. The OP provided service connection to his said factory being Consumer No. D22077 and Service Connection No. 197(1). On 18.06.2001 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,09,100/- as security deposit to the OPs but instead of industrial phase, the OPs. supplied energy through rural phase. As a result due to low voltage most time the factory remains unproductive. As a result of such poor production the petitioner could not pay the electric charge for the time being and his service connection was disconnected several times. On 17.07.2000 the complainant sent letters to the OPs and on 31.07.2001 sent letter to the Hon’ble Minister of Power and Electricity describing the miserable condition being faced by him for providing him connection from rural phase. Thereafter the petitioner also paid Rs 26,869/- for change of feeder from Rural to Industrial phase. Due to non-service of the electric bills and letters at the address of the complainant in due time the complainant failed to pay the electric charge and he also faced different difficulties. So, on 07.08.2001 he sent one letter to the OP by giving a local address for easy correspondence. The OPs demanded higher security deposit  and as per their instruction the petitioner deposited Rs. 39,450/- on 10.07.2002 and total security deposit paid by the petitioner was Rs. 2,48,550/- till 10.07.2007. The OP whimsically deducted the due bills from the security deposit without any consent of the petitioner. On 26.07.2003 the OPs compelled the petitioner to make deposit of Rs. 4,20,342/- as security deposit. The petitioner deposited the same.

The petitioner started his business being financed by Bank on 31.03.97 but the OP provided power supply on 25.05.1999 from a Rural phase whereas the petitioner applied for electric connection on 08.01.97 and the OP gave quotation  on 31.03.97 and the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,32,256 on 14.05.97 and also gave security money bank guarantee of Rs. 2,09,100/-  on 14.06.97.  The OP whimsically cancelled the prior agreement and compelled the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 30,000/- for TOD Meter. So the petitioner could not start his production for two years after taking loan from the bank and he had to repay the EMI and interest to the Bank for two years without any business for the delay in getting electric connection. He had to suffer heavy loss as a result of such delayed connection made by the OP. On 19.11.2003 the bank ultimately took over the property due to nonpayment of the loan amount in time. The petitioner closed his business thereafter and applied to the OP for permanent disconnection of the service connection and at that time he paid all the dues of the OPs in January, 2004. The petitioner made several representation to the OPs for refund of  his security deposit  several times but the OP did not pay any heed. Suddenly on 07.11.2009 the OP sent one letter demanding electric bill of Rs.75, 873/- stating that the disconnection has been effected in February, 2004. On 16.11.2009 the petitioner again sent a letter to the OP praying for return of the security deposit amount but the OP did not return the same.  Again on 05.06.2010 the petitioner sent a letter to the OP by registered post and another letter through his advocate on 21.10.2010 asking for refund of the security deposit but the OP remained silent in the matter. On 03.10.16 the OP sent one letter illegally demanding electric bills of Rs. 1,20,515/-  stating therein that the electric connection has been disconnected on 01.10.2004.

Under such tremendous mental pressure the petitioner has filed this case on the ground of deficiency and/or negligence in service on the part of the OPs praying for the relief as made in the complaint petition.

The OPs contested the complaint case by filing written version and written notes on argument denying all the material allegations made in the petition and contended inter alia that  the case is barred by limitation. It is further submission of the OPs that  the complainant is a habitual defaulter in payment of electric bills which the OPs was compelled to adjust with the security deposit of the petitioner. Thereafter due to low consumption the mater circuit/installation was inspected by the Central Testing Department on 03.01.2002 and after inspection the performance of TOD meter and CT found unsatisfactory and defective and on the basis of the said inspection a supplementary  bill of Rs. 3,03154/- was raised for the period  of September, 2001  to January 2002. But as the complainant did not pay the supplementary bill and as the previous security deposit were already adjusted with the previous dues complainant became defaulter and as such complainant himself deposited Rs. 39,450/- on 10.07.2002 and agreed to deposit Rs. 4,70,896/- for further security deposit and outstanding  electric bill vide letter dated 30.06.2003 deposited Rs 600/- for reconnection charge and Rs. 4,20,34 2/-for security deposit on 26.07.2003. The complainant being a habitual defaulter several notice U/Sec. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act had been served upon the complainant, but in spite of that till 12.02.2004 he did not pay his outstanding dues of Rs. 4,96,215/-. At this the OP disconnected the service connection of the petitioner on 13.02.2004. Even after such disconnection OP made several communication with the petitioner claiming the outstanding dues of Rs. 3,03,154/- and late payment surcharge. Thereafter complainant admitted his dues and applied on 09.02.2004 for review  which was subsequently referred to the CE (Com/Dist.) where the review application of the petitioner had been rejected. Complainant did not prefer any Appeal against that rejection. As such the complainant was compelled to pay the dues. After the aforesaid order   on 18.06.2004 the  OP sent notice  to complainant for termination of the license agreement  but even after receipt of the said notice the petitioner did not take any positive steps to clear his arrear dues within the period of the aforesaid notice. As such the OP terminated the agreement of licensor – licensee relation with the complainant. The outstanding dues increased day by day and as on 30.09.2004 it became Rs. 5,18,897/-. The cash security of the complainant as on that date was Rs. 4,20,342/-. So, after adjustment the outstanding amount was Rs. 75,873/-due from the complainant. By letter dated 07.11.2009 the OP demanded that amount. On the contrary the complainant demanded refund of the security deposit by his letter dated 05.06.10. The OP again sent letter giving detail description of the outstanding dues from the complainant, but complainant ignoring that notice, sent letter to this OP through his ld lawyer on 21.10.10 and thereafter he remained silent for long six years In the aforesaid circumstances,  the OP issued demand notice upon the petitioner on 03.10.16 according to law for realizing the outstanding dues of Rs 1,20,515/- including surcharge as on the date. After receipt of such demand notice the petitioner has filed this case with false, fabricated and baseless statement. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

The points for consideration is whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with Reasons.

Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

We have perused all the materials submitted by the complainant and the Opposite parties. Admittedly the complainant took electric connection from the OPs allegedly for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and to run h is proprietary business. Admittedly the OPs provided service connection to the complainant being Consumer No., D-22077 and Service No. 197(1). It is not denied that at the time of taking the electric connection the complainant deposited Rs. 2,09,100/- as security deposit on 18.06.2001. But according to the complainant due to negligent act  of the OPs most of the time  production  of the business remained stopped  due to power disconnection and low voltage.

In the circumstances the complainant wrote several letters to the Superintending Engineer of the OPs i.e on 13.06.2000, 11.07.2000 and 26.07.2000.   The complainant also wrote letter to the OPs on 18.06.2001 requesting them to release his bank guarantee money of Rs. 2, 09,100/- which was deposited on 14.06.1997  by the complainant. The complainant also filed copy of letter dated 31.07.2001 showing that he submitted complaint before the Hon’ble Minister, Power and Electricity, Government of West Bengal for repeated hampering of electricity in his factory. It appears that on 07.11.2009 the OPs wrote the complainant for payment of outstanding dues lying pending against disconnected bulk service connection Consumer No. D 22077. In that letter the OP wrote the complainant stating that bulk power supply at his premises at Tamluk has been lying disconnected since February, 2004. The outstanding dues against this disconnected connection stands at Rs. 75,873/-. The complainant was requested to clear this OSD at the earliest.  Against that the complainant gave a reply on 16.11.09. It appears in 23.07.10 the OP wrote the complainant informing him that total outstanding dues i.r.o. of the said bulk connection stood at Rs 518897.00 only including accrued late payment surcharge. The amount of cash security Rs. 75873/- only deposited by the complainant including accrued interest was adjusted with the total outstanding dues. Even after adjustment an outstanding dues of amount of Rs. 75873/- only along with the accrued late payment surcharge had been remaining due on his part as shown below:

1.Energy bill for Dec,03, Feb,04 to Oct,04, December,04 and March,05     Rs. 464932.00

2. Late payment Surcharge up to 30.09.20-04                                                  Rs.  53956.00

                                                                                                                          Rs. 518897.00

3.  Less Security Amount including interest up to 30.09.2004                       Rs. 443024.00

                                                                                             Total due             Rs.   75873.00

Against that letter the complainant  wrote to the OP informing  them that as per their advice he deposited a sum of Rs. 4,20,342/- on 26.07.2003 along with reconnection charge of Rs. 600/- . but due to  fault of electric line and non co-operatinal attitude  from the end of the Op  along with labour problem, the said factory became sick one and ultimately he  suffered  loss and  there was no alternative  but to close the factory in January, 2004. The complainant informed the  OP in this letter  that Op has already  disconnected  the electric line from February,  2004 but his security money is still lying in the Department  and not been paid to him along with interest .  

The OP’s explanation in this regard is not satisfactory. In the written version the OPs have admitted that on 19.11.2003 bank took over the property of the complainant. It is also admitted there that the complainant started his business by taking loan. Admittedly the complainant on 14.05.97 deposited Rs 1,32,256/-  and gave security money bank guarantee of Rs. 2,09,100/- on 14.06.1997. Admittedly the OPs cancelled the prior agreement and made one new agreement and complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for TOD meter.  Admittedly complainant was unable to start production for two years after getting bank loan due to delay in providing service connection to his factory. The complainant suffered huge loss and made default in payment of dues  for such negligence of the OP and on 19.11.2003 bank took  over the property. Though OP has stated that the OP provided industrial connection to the complainant’s factory and for charge of connection into Industrial phase the complainant deposited Rs. 26,869/- on 26.09.2000 and Rs.2,09,100/-as security on 18.06.2001 but the complainant alleged that  electric connection was poor  and actually the complainant  had to close down the factory due to shortage of electric  supply.

It appears that there was one electric connection in the factory of the complainant and OP served bills for payment. In this connection we want to refer a decision of 2016(2) CPR 902 (NC) wherein it has been held that issuing of bills hampering of electricity constitutes deficiency for service. It appears that complainant was not getting electric supply from the OP and OP raised electric bills for said time and OP also did not refund the security deposit in spite of closure of the factory and non-consumption of the electricity by the complainant.

Hence, in the circumstances stated above the complainant is entitled to get the refund of security deposit of Rs. 4,20,342/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of this case  till the date of actual realization from the OP. We do not find it will be reasonable to pay Rs 7,00,000/- as compensation  to the complainant  for negligent act , harassment  and mental agony.

The complainant is entitled to get litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- from the OP.

Hence, it is

Ordered,

That the Complaint Case being No. 9 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the  OPs.

The OPs are directed to  pay Rs. 4,20,342/- with 9% interest  from the date of filing of this complaint petition  till the date of actual realization to the complainant and also to pay Rs 10,000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of this order, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay punitive charge of Rs. 100/- per day which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Smt. Bandana Roy]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Syeda Shahnur Ali,LLB]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sajal Kanti Jana]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.