F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for direction upon O.P. to correct the electricity bills for the period from 15.06.2013 to 25.11.2013 and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- and further Rs.15,000/- for mental agony and harassment and also for litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-

The case of the complainant in brief is that he has an industrial connection for his business in the name and style M/s Lokman Aata and Oil Industry since 1988. That on 15.06.2013 the transformer from where he has his service connection was in disorder and his business was stopped due to snapping of electric supply. On 22.07.2013 he informed the O.P. for repair or replace of defective transformer and again on 02.09.2013 he made the same request along with other consumers of the locality. Lastly, on 18.11.2013 the O.P. No.1 was again requested, but only on 25.11.2013 O.P. replaced the same. Thus the mill of the O.P. could not be run for about 6 (six) months, his only source of income and it amounted to a loss of Rs.75,000/-. O.P. received bill for the period amounting to Rs.30,000/-, which he was bound to pay. Therefore he filed this case before this Forum for such unnecessary harassment and loss of business and made the above mentioned prayer.

O.P. N o.1 and 2 appeared and contested the case by filing written version and alleges that all the allegations of the complainant are false and he suppressed the material fact. That the fact is that O.P. is a consumer running the business enjoying electricity all along. That the transformer of the said locality is always in function and was Okay in condition from 15.06.2013 to 25.11.2013. That about 125/150 consumers of various categories are enjoying electricity from the transformer peacefully without any allegation or complaint regarding defect of transformer. That petitioner is a willful defaulter in payment of electricity bills. He did not pay the bill for the said period and another case being CC-19/2013 was filed by him disputing the outstanding bill amount and the case was finally disposed of. Therefore the complainant has no cause of action to file this case.

To establish the case, complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him as P.W.-1 with some documents. O.P. also adduced evidence as O.P.W.-1.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

P.W.-1 in his examination in chief deposed that the transformer was in disorder on 15.06.2013 and he first informed on 22.07.2013. That he has stopped his mill running from 15.06.2013, but there is no other evidence oral and documentary in his support in this regard. Why he delayed in making complaint on 22.07.2013 after such a long gap? In the letter dated 22.07.2013 to Assistant Engineer, WBSEDCL, Kaliyaganj that he alleges that he was not provided electricity properly as the transformer was ‘burnt’ having no electric supply in its middle phase. How he came to know about non-supply of electricity in the middle phase is not clear. Nor is it proved by any technical expert. On the other hand Assistant Engineer & Station Manager himself deposed in this case as O.P.W.-1 and stated that from 15.06.2013 to 25.11.2013 the “industry of the complainant was in good condition”. And petitioner was enjoying electricity from his service connection like other 125/ 150 consumers without any interruption. There was no complaint from anybody. That the petitioner is himself defaulter in paying electric bills. Petitioner as P.W.-1 admitted this fact in cross examination that he did not pay electric bills as he was not provided with fresh and correct electric bills following order of this Forum in CC - 19/2013. He admits that about 60 consumers in that village enjoyed electricity in their household along with his mill from the same transformer. That all the consumers are receiving electricity in that disputed period (15.06.2013 to 25.11.2013). This admission of the complainant in cross examination is sufficient to prove that, complainant was provided with electricity by the O.Ps. in the above mentioned disputed period.

In his prayer before this Forum, he prays for a direction upon O.P. to provide correct electricity bill for the period 15.06.2013 to 25.11.2013. If he is not provided with electricity in that period then why he is ready and willing to pay electricity charges during the period?

Regarding loss of business to the tune of Rs.75,000/- as claimed by the complainant for alleged defect of  transformer. P.W.-1 deposed that during the disputed period he received electric bill of about Rs.30,000/- and O.P. bound him to pay the same. No such electric bill is produce by the complainant showing any payment. It is not clear if he is not provided with electricity how he was served with electric bill during the period. In the complaint letter dated 22.07.2013 he stated that he was not provided with electricity properly due to burning of transformer on 15.06.2013 and is not in a position to pay the electricity bills as per order of the Forum. So he is admitting that he is defaulter in making payment of electric charges.

Ld. Lawyer for the O.Ps. argues that petitioner is a habituate defaulter in paying electricity bills even he is not paying electricity bills at present and he was supplied electricity uninterruptedly for running his Lokman Aata and Oil Industry and only to avoid payment he has filed this case before this Forum.

In cross examination of P.W.-1 deposed that he attend 30/ 40 customers in his Chaki running regularly during the season of wheat. There is 50/ 60 houses in the village. The customers carry 25/ 30 KG wheat for crashing in his Chaki having 15 HP machine. He has only one employee with whom he runs the mill. The wheat season is from end of March to April, 15th. And he is not paying (at present) any bill as electric charges for running the mill. From this evidence it is difficult to believe by this Forum how the complainant faces a loss of Rs.75,000/- from his business during the disputed period. The complainant also substantiate the said loss of his business by any other reliable oral or documentary evidence that he actually face any such loss in the mill for “defective transformer” or non-supply of electricity in “middle phase” in the connection of the mill. In absence of adequate justification for grant of presumptive loss in running his Aata Chaki Mill, this Forum is unable to hold any such loss of business during the period for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. In this regard we can rely the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission as reported in 2015 (3) CPR 160 N.C.

In view of the discussions above we are of the opinion that complainant fails to prove his case by cogent and sufficient evidence and is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence it is,

ORDERED

That the case being No.CC-20/2015 is dismissed on contest but without cost.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.