West Bengal

Birbhum

MA/17/2022

Jyotshna Bibi - Complainant(s)

Versus

W.B.S.E.D.C.L, Ahmadpur C.C.C, - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 2022

ORDER

Today is fixed for admission hearing. Complainant files hazira through his Ld. Advocate. Heard, perused the complaint and documents. It appears to us that prima facie a case has been made out against the Ops.

Let, the case be admitted.

Requisites at once.

The complainant/petitioner files a petition U/S 38 of the C.P Act 2019 is being registered treated as  M.A Case No. 17/2022. For getting of interim order and injunction to restore the electricity.

Complainant files a petition of complaint U/S 35 of the C.P Act 2019 stating interalia that there is an electric connection in his premises vide consumer ID No. 521183847 supplied by the WBSEDCL i.e. the OP of this case. The complainant is a consumer under OP and the OP is a service provider.

It is further stated that the new electric connection had been installed in the premises of the complainant on September 2019 and since then she has been enjoying the electric connection.

It is alleged that since installation the complainant did not get any electric bill then he submitted the written representation dated 18/08/2020, 17/12/2020 and 01/12/2021 with a request of the send electric bill as per meter reading to the OP, but in vain. Ultimately on 01/12/2021 the complainant submitted another written representation after getting the exorbitant electric bill of Rs. 1,66,500/- for the period of November 2020 to October 2021 i.e. for two years.

The complainant further stated that the connection load in the premises of the complainant is lying 0.30 KVA and if the burning hours is taking for Eight (8) hours per day then such consumption of impossible. After getting the electric bill in question dated 16/11/2021 the complainant had been at the office of the OP with a request to send a fresh electric bill after taking the meter reading of her premises, but they did not pay any heed do her words and threatened that if the bill amount could not be paid by the complainant them this service connection will be disconnected.

In her application U/S 38 of the C.P Act 2019 the complainant prayed for restraining the OP from disconnecting the electric service connection in the premises of the complainant vide Consumer ID No. 521183847.

On a close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record it appears that the electric bill in question as sent by the OP to the complainant/petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,66,500/- for the period November 2020 to October 2021 for two years and from the fact stated by the complainant/petitioner in its petitions of complaint U/S 35 of the C.P Act 2019 and U/S of the C.P Act 2019 it is palpably clear that the complainant/petitioner did not submit the bill in question till date.

As the electricity is the essential service and the OP/WBSEDCL is the service provider to the consumer complainant from which it can be held by this Commission that there is strong prima facie case in favour of the complainant/petitioner to get the ad interim order or injunction in his favour. The OP/WBSEDCL is thus restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection in the Consumer ID No. 521183847 installing premises of the complainant on payment of 50% p.a. of the bill in question amounting to Rs. 1,66,500/-.

Thus the M.A Case No. 17/2022 is thus disposed of.