DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA.

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 59 of 2020.

 

1. Sri Parimal Chandra Saha,

S/O. Hemanta Saha,

R/O. Vill & P.O.-Champamura,

P.S.-Bishalghar. 

Dist.-Sepahijala Tripura,

Pin-799130...............................................................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.

Represented by 

Chief Managing Director(CMD),

“Bidyut Bhawan”, Bhuturia,

P.S.-East Agartala,

Dist-West Tripura, Pin-799001.

 

2. The Senior Manager, 

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.

Electrical Sub-Division Sekherkote,

P.S.-Bishalghar, P.O.-Sekerkote,

Dist.-Sepahijala Tripura, Pin-799130....................Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri  Swarup Pandit,

  Sri Maloy Debnath,

  Sri Prahallad Rudra Paul,

  Advocates. 

 

For the O.Ps. : Sri Nepal Majumdar,

  Advocate.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 04/07/2022.

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant Sri Parimal Chandra Saha, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant has permanent electric connection vide consumer No.2081040440213014045 and at that time of obtaining connection the Complainant paid necessary charges for that connection. On 21st April, 2018 due to extreme storm the electric connection was completely destroyed. The Complainant had expressly intimated the matter 3 times in writing to the O.P. i.e. Senior Manager and also even intimated the matter verbally and after intimating the matter the O.P. did not take any steps regarding the matter till date. Moreover, the O.P. is issuing bill regularly to the Complainant showing consumption of power of 20 unit, 10 unit respectively of different months but the complainant is continuously paying the respective bills without having any electric connection in the Complainant's house. O.P. was illegally issuing fake bill without any consumption on the part of the Complainant. This is the deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. The Complainant further stated that the complainant has another electric connection consumer Id No.2081040440213018108 for the purpose of minor irrigation for his agriculture. The Complainant had prayed on 20/08/2017 to O.P. No.2 for temporary disconnection and also submitted Rs.200/- before the same authority and duly the said connection was disconnected. Thereafter, on 30/01/2018 after 6 months from the previous prayer the Complainant again submitted Rs.200/- to the O.P. No.2 and reconnected the electric line. Although there is no connection during the period of 20/08/2017 to 30/01/2018 but the O.P. had issued a bill for the period  of 20/08/2017 to 10/08/2018. The complainant suffered mental agony due to deficiency service committed by the O.Ps.

Being aggrieved by the conduct of the O.Ps., the Complainant has filed present complaint praying for compensation for mental agony, harassment and for deficiency of service by the O.Ps.   

Hence this case. 

Both the O.Ps have contested the complaint by filing written objection jointly denying the contentions and the allegations of the complainant. 

       In the written objection it is submitted that the Complainant unnecessarily filed this false and fabricated complaint against the answering O.Ps. with ulterior motive.  O.P. No.2 stated that Complainant instead of making the payment of standing dues of consumption of Electricity Bill filed the present complaint without any prima facie cause of action. O.P. further stated that the Complainant have two nos. of service connection such as Consumer ID No.-2081040440213014045 & another Consumer ID No.2081040440213016108 and the Complainant in his complaint stated that due to storm the service was damaged but practically there was no storm occurred on 21/04/2018 and no Electric line was disconnected in the house of the petitioner. There was reason for discontinuation of service connection was due to cutting of trees by the manpower engaged by Sri Parimal Chandra Saha. Moreover there is a sufficient proof regarding the steady electric supply even after the date of 21/04/2018 and the Petitioner enjoyed the electricity and happily made payment of Electric bill even after 21/04/2018. O.P. also stated that the Complainant had not approached to the office for permission to use 1 HP motor as source of water for his domestic consumption which he mentioned in the complaint petition. O.P. No.2 i.e. Senior Manager several times went to the house of the petitioner for electric connection but the petitioner denied to take the connection rather asked the staffs to cancell the all electric bill and only thereafter he will allow the staffs to make service connection. The O.P. No.2 has tried to restore the power supply so many times but due to non co-operation from Sri Saha power supply not restored. O.P. No.2 further stated that the Complainant enjoying the electricity from his another electric connection bearing Consumer ID No.2081040440213016108 which is mean for irrigation purpose. The using the electricity of irrigation connection used for domestic purposes is impermissible and grossly illegal and violates and Electricity Supply Act, 2003. Therefore setting up of 1 HP Motor as source of water for domestic use is also illegal but O.P. No.2 i.e. Senior Manager, Sekerkote Electrical Sub-Division visited for several times to provide the electricity connection but the Petitioner denied to restore the Electric service of domestic connection. O.P. No.2 further stated that the Complainant have not submitted any prayer on 20/08/2017 and on the same date no money receipt have been generated which was the day of Sunday as holiday. O.Ps. submitted that the Consumer ID No.2081040440213014045 (Domestic Connection of Sri Parmal Chandra Saha), No. of Pending bill=18 nos. Total pending amount= Rs.1210.51 & another Consumer ID No.2081040440213016108 (Irrigation Connection of Sri Parimal Chandra Saha) number of pending bill=09 nos. Total pending amount = Rs.4700.92. So there is no question of deficiency of service from the side of the O.Ps. and O.Ps. also stated that Complainant is to pay the pending Electric bill Rs.1,210.51 in connection with the consumer ID No.2081040440213014045 & another consumer ID No.2081040440213016108 pending electric bill Rs.4,700.92 in total Rs.5,911.43, Litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-, harassment to the O.P.  of Rs.50,000/- & Exemplary cost for instituting a false case by misrepresentation of Rs.50,000/- in total Rs.1,35,911.43/- with interest @9% P.A.      

3. Evidence adduced by the parties:-

The complainant did not adduce any evidence. The Complainant produced 4 documents comprising 4 sheets under a  Firisti dated  24/08/2020. The documents are copy of bill vide Consumer ID No.2081040440213014045, Copy of bill vide Consumer ID No.20810400440213018108, Copy of letter dated 01/01/2019 to the Senior Manager, Sekerkote Electric Sub-Division & Copy of letter dated 17/12/2018 to the Senior Manager, Sekerkote Electric Sub-Division. Documents are not exhibited. 

O.Ps. adduced oral evidence of one witness namely Sri Asis Nandi, Senior Manager, Sekerkote Electrical Sub-Division. In this case the O.Ps. produced 6 documents comprising 36 sheets under a Firisti dated 06/12/2021. The documents on identification are marked as Exhibit – A Series. 

4. Points to be determined:

  (i). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the complainant?     

         (ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation /relief as prayed for ?    

5. Arguments of both sides:

            At the time of argument Counsel of the Complainant was absent but we heard Counsel of the O.P. and it is decided that judgment will be delivered on merit.

                Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted that burden to prove the deficiency in service lies upon the Complainant and in the instant case Complainant failed to discharge the burden and no evidence is adduced in support of his claim. So, Complaint is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, O.P. has adduced their oral evidence as well as documentary evidence and it has been proved that Complainant has filed a false and concocted complaint for the purpose of illegal gain.          

6. Decision and reasons for decision:-  

All the points are taken up together for the convenience for decision.  

We have carefully gone through the pleadings  as well as evidences adduced from the side of the O.Ps. 

Since, Complainant has failed to adduce any evidence as well as failed to discharge the burden to prove the deficiency in service appreciation of evidence of complainant does not arise. 

        But on the other hand we find that OPW-1 namely Sri Asis Nandi, Sr. Manager of Sekerkote Electrical Sub-Division in his examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that instant complaint petition is not maintainable in facts as well as in law as Complainant suppressed the material facts. At Para No.7 OPW stated that Complainant in his complaint stated that due to storm the service was damaged. Practically there was no storm occurred on 21/04/2018. Reason for discontinuation of service connection was due to cutting of trees by the manpower engaged by Sri Parimal Chandra Saha, Complainant on 28/12/2019, the branches of trees fallen on the service connection  resulting the disconnection. OPW further stated that there was no storm occurred on 21/04/2018 and no electric line was disconnected by choosing the only house of the Complainant. Moreover there is  sufficient proof regarding the electric supply even after the date of 21/04/2018 and the Complainant enjoyed the electricity and happily made payment of electric bill, even after 21/04/2018. Thereafter, OPW also stated that the Complainant had not approached to the office for permission to use 1 HP motor as source of water for his domestic consumption. AT Para No.10 OPW-1 stated that in practical the Complainant enjoying the electricity from his another electric connection bearing Consumer ID No.2081040440213016108 which is meant for irrigation purpose. The using the electricity of irrigation connection used for domestic purposes is impermissible and grossly illegal, and violates the Electricity Supply Act, 2003. 

7. On overall appreciation of the complaint petition as well as evidence adduced from the side of the O.Ps., we found that Complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. Moreover, we find that Complainant did not come with clean hands and suppressed material facts. 

Accordingly, we are in the opinion that Complainant has failed to prove his complaint U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Hence, the complaint is dismissed and no costs. 

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

  Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.