West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/81/2014

M/S Mehedi Hossain - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

and 

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.81/2014

 

             M/S Mehdi Hossain, Proprietor, Mehdi Hossain son of late Md. Shafi, Holding no.196/78,

             Ward no.6 (New), Domkal, Bhawanipur, Kharagpur, District - Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. Assistant Engineer, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Malancha GR, E/S, P.O. Kharagpur, P.S. Kharagpur, P.S. Kharagpur (Town), District Paschim Medinipur,
2. Divisional Manager, Shakti Bhaban, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution

Company Ltd., Inda, Kharagpur, P.O. Kharagpur, P.S. Kharagpur (Town), District Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Subrata  Bikas Das, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Shyama Pada Dutta, Advocate.

 

Decided on  04 /09/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant M/S Mehdi Hossain alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, named above.

                 Facts of the case, in brief, are that since the year1990, the complainant is a consumer of electric service connection of the O.Ps.  His service connection no. is 1597717 and the said connection is commercial in nature.  Complainant is running an ice producing factory in his premises and it consumes electricity in accordance with need and necessity for producing ice only.  For such use of energy, the complainant paid electric bills regularly.  In the month of June 2014, the complainant received a electric bill of Rs.6,70,588/- for the bill month of June, 2014.  It is stated that the said amount is excessive and absurd and the said bill was not according to the consumption of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant requested the O.Ps to make proper enquiry for ascertaining actual energy charges and he also annexed previous bills with such written request.  The O.Ps installed a check meter in the premises of the complainant.  Even thereafter, the O.Ps insisted the complainant to pay the entire amount of said bill, although the complainant expressed his willingness to deposit Rs.10,000/- as provisional amount per month for continuing the supply of electricity.  It is stated that issuance of such inflated bill is willful deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.  The complainant has further stated that the said ice plant is the only source of his subsistence.  Hence the complaint, praying for an order of correction of inflated bill, an award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- an award of litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.   

                  Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.  

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that after receiving the application against alleged inflated electric bill, the O.P. no.1 enquired the matter and it was found that the electric meter was fixed on the wall of the premises of the complainant which was beyond the label of eye sight.  The meter reading could not be taken without pressing the button of the meter for which on 30/05/2014, the seal of the meter was broken and it was noticed that the meter reading was originally 77387 units which might have been accumulated since the date of installation of the meter.   Unfortunately, all previous bills were raised as per consumption record available in the said meter, wrongly considering auto displayed of one para meter.  The O.P. no.1 therefore installed another same type of meter for detecting the accuracy of the meter and it was found that the consumption unit was same in both the meters and so it was declared that the consumption unit of the main meter regarding 17837/- unit for the billing month of May 2014 may have been accumulated from the date of installation.  The meter checking report was sent to the complainant who received the same on 07/07/2014.  It is further stated that another industrial service connection being I.D. no.212094088 is installed in the same plot adjacent to the said premises and the consumer has a chance to consume electricity from the electric meter in question being no.ST727427 for running the machinery from said another connection.  The O.Ps therefore claim dismissal of the complaint with cost.

             To prove his case, the complainant Mehdi Hossain has examined himself as PW-1 and another witness namely Sunitava Hazra as PW-2.  The documents, relied upon by the complainant, have been marked exhibit 1 to 2/6 respectively.  On the other hand, O.Ps have examined one witness namely Sri Sougata Roy, Sr. Sub-Asstt. Engineer of the O.Ps as OPW-1 and during his evidence, few documents were marked exhibit A to E respectively.  

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer under the provision of C.P. Act?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

           Point nos.1&2:-

For the sake of convenience and brevity, both the above points are taken up together for consideration.

                        At the time of hearing of argument, maintainability of this case has been questioned by the Ld. Lawyer for the O.Ps on the ground that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the provision of sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.  On this score, we find that admittedly the electric service connection in question of the complainant is commercial in nature in as much as the complainant himself in his petition of complaint has admitted that his said electric service connection no1597717 is a commercial one.  So admittedly the disputed service connection is commercial in nature for running the ice producing factory of the complainant.  Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act defines consumer as the person,  who hires or avails of any services for consideration but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.  Of course, explanation of said sub-clause of Sec. 2(1)(d) states that for the purpose of this clause, commercial purpose does not include use by person of goods brought and used by him/her and services availed by him/her exclusively for the purposes of earning his/her livelihood by means of self employment.  Although in paragraph 11 of the petition of complaint, the complainant has stated that the said ice plant is the only source of his subsistence, but nowhere in his petition of complaint, complainant has stated that he avails such services exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self -employment.  Neither in his petition of complaint nor in his evidence, the complainant has stated that he himself is employed in his said business for the purpose of earning his livelihood.  In that view of the matter, the complainant cannot get any benefit by virtue of said “explanation” clause of sec. 2(1)(d)(ii).  That being so and since admittedly the electric service connection in question of the complainant is commercial in nature, the complainant cannot be held to be a consumer under provision of C.P. Act and therefore, the present petition of complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.

                   These two points are accordingly decided against the complainant.

            Point nos. 3&4

                    In view of our above findings in point nos. 1&2, the question of

           deficiency in service does not arise and the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs,

           as prayed for. 

                    These two points are therefore decided in the negative and against the

           complainant.

                    All the points are accordingly disposed of.

                     In the result, the complaint case fails,

 

                                                           Hence, it is,

                                                             Ordered,

                                                              that the complaint case no.81/2014  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

 

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                    Sd/-B. Pramanik.                       Sd/- Sagarika Sarkar                Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                            President                                 Member                                    President 

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur