Tripura

Unakoti

MA/1/2023

Tapan Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tripura State Electricity Co. Ltd. & Another - Opp.Party(s)

C. Bhattacharjee, D. Tarafdar, P. Das

31 Jan 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION

UNAKOTI DISTRICT: KAILASHAHAR

 

Case No. MA 01/2023

 

Present : Sri P. Kumar, President

&

Sri S. Sinha, Member

Smt. M. Datta, Member

 

FINAL ORDER DATED 31-01-2023

 

            This is an application filed under section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant Sri Tapan Paul against the opposite parties, namely, 1. The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Agartala, West Tripura and 2. Sai Computers Ltd., represented by General/Project Manager, Franchise Electrical Division, Distribution Franchise of TSECL, Kailashahar, Unakoti District seeking interim relief of staying the proceeding and also any sort of electricity cutting down by the OP No. 2 and also to allow complainant to pay regular bill for last 2/3 months.

            The case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of the OP No. 2 and OP No. 2 vide letter No. SCL/KLS/VGL/142 dated 04-08-2022 served a notice upon the complainant imposing a penalty of Rs.22,539/- for allegedly drawing electricity by means of hook/tempering of meter/cutting of service line and unauthorized use of electricity/extension of tap line etc. Against the said notice the complainant submitted representation on 14-09-2022 before the OP No.2 with a request not to act upon on the notice dated 04-08-2022, but no reply was given by the OP No.2 and in the month of December, 2022 OP No. 2 raised a bill in favour of the complainant for the period from 09-11-2022 to 08-12-2022 for an amount of Rs.23,077/- with arrear  bill of Rs.22,539/-. Thereafter, on 22-11-2022 the complainant approached the office of the OP No. 2 and asked for detailed explanation and also submitted a written prayer for shifting of power meter, but the OP No. 2 did not give any proper answer about his prayer. It is stated in the petition that the complainant is ready and willing to pay the regular bill for the period after 09-11-2022, but as his account(online) has been blocked he could not make payment of the bill through online and thereafter when he approached the office of the OP No. 2 to pay the bill, OP No. 2 also refused to receive the payment. Under that circumstance finding no resort the complainant served Advocate’s notice to the Ops on 16-12-2022 through his engaged lawyer, but even then no reply was given by any of the OPs. Thereafter, on 20-01-2023 the OP No. 2 sent their employees to the house of the complainant to disconnect the electricity line though with the intervention of the locals OP No. 2 was not successful in his bid. However, the staffs so entrusted by the OP No. 2 threatened the complainant to clear the bill by February, 2023, otherwise they will disconnect the electricity line forcefully. Under this background the complainant has come up before this Commission for redress and prayed for staying the disconnection process by the OP No. 2 and also to allow the complainant to pay the monthly consumed electricity bill.

 

            Heard learned counsel Mr. D. Tarafdar appearing on behalf of the complainant. During the course of argument learned counsel argued that the OP No.2 served notice to the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.22,539/-, but there is no base as to how the OP No. 2 assessed the amount alleged to be raised by the OP No. 2 for unauthorized use of electricity by way of hook line or otherwise. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant had good intention to pay the monthly bill and he was never defaulter in payment of the bill upto the month of October, 2022. He submitted representation after getting the notice from the OP No. 2, but the OP No. 2 did not give any reply and rather kept on raising the monthly bill with arrear bill and not only that the OP No. 2 blocked his online gateway and also did not allow the complainant to pay the bill from the month of November, 2022. Further, the OP No. 2 sent his men to the house of the complainant on 20-01-2023 to disconnect the electricity line as he did not pay the arrear bill of Rs.22,539/-.

 

            I find force in the submission of the learned counsel and prima facie it appears that the act of the OP No. 2 is arbitrary in nature since the complainant was not given any reply to his representation nor that of the Advocate’s notice sent to the OP No. 2.

            Hence, it is ordered that the OP No. 2 is restrained from disconnecting the domestic electric line of the complainant and OP No. 2 shall also allow the complainant to pay the monthly bill for 03(three) months from November, 2022 in arrear and thereafter to allow him to pay the monthly bill till disposal of the original case bearing No. CC 01/2023.

            Office is to transmit a copy of this order to the OP No. 2 at the earliest for compliance.

            With this observation, this Misc. Application stands disposed of.

            Entry be made accordingly in the register.