Date of filing: 02.03.2015 Date of disposal: 29.01.2018
Complainant: Biplob Hazra, S/o. Late Kartick Chandra Hazra. Resident of Ayama, PO: Shilampur, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 169.
Opposite Party: 1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Panagarh Group Electric Supply, PO: Panagarh, PS: Kanksa, Dist: Burdwan, represented by Station Manager.
2. (O&M) Division of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Situated at City Centre, Durgapur, PS: Durgapur, District: Burdwan, represented by Divisional Manager.
3. W.B.S.E.D.C.L., Bidyut Bhavan, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700 091, represented by Chairman.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Jayanta Koner.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.
J u d g e m e n t
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops have illegally disconnected his electric supply connection though there is no due with regard to electricity consumption.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a consumer having an electric connection being service connection No. 500418850 and Consumer No. C074887 and the said connection uses for domestic purpose at his house. The OP-1 used to distributes electricity in the locality under the control and supervision of the OP No. 2&3. The OP-1 sent a bill regarding the aforesaid connection being dated 10.01.2014 for Rs. 472=00 and the due date of payment of the bill was on January. Thereafter the OP-1 sent a bill dated 09.4.2014 for Rs. 468=00 with due date of payment was on April. The further case of the complainant is that there is no possibility of any other bill pending. The Ops have not sent any previous bill in his name. The complainant visited the office of the OP-1 and nobody received the matter in writing dated 10.4.2014. The OP-1 refused to solve any problem of the complainant.
The OP-1 disconnected the electric supply connection on 19.4.2014 though there was no such due and OP-1 had not issued any demand for bill regarding above-mentioned connection. The OP-1 continuously making pressure upon the complainant. After that family members of the complainant fell ill and were suffering from fever and other diseases due to hot weather. The complainant several times requested the OP-1 to connect the electric connection, but the OP-1 did not connect the said electric supply and also threatened the complainant to lodge a case against him. The complainant regularly visited the OP office to solve the problem and requested several times to connect the electricity in his house. But the officer-in-charge refused the request of the complainant. In this situation the complainant is facing a lot of problem and his minor child fell ill frequently. The complainant has prayed for reconnection of the said electric service line along with Rs. 50,000=00 for suffering mental agonies and anxieties for the act of the Ops, Rs. 20,000=00 for unfair trade practice and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000=00.
This complaint is contested by the Ops by filing written version denying all the material allegations made by the complainant against the Ops. The case of the Ops is that in the premises of the complainant one electric connection having Consumer ID No. 514042573 is existing and the said connection has been disconnected on 18.10.2011 due to outstanding dues Rs. 6167=00 for the period of June 2010 to December 2011 and the said connection will be treated as deemed disconnection but the complainant knowing everything upon false declaration has taken another service connection having Consumer ID No. 500418850 in the self-same premises on 30.12.2012 without making arrangement of payment of said outstanding dues against the said disconnected connection and when the matter came to the knowledge of the OP -1 a notice vide memo. No. PCC/Revenue/13-14/6245, dated 31.03.2014 has issued to the complainant who received the same on 01.04.2014 and thereby the complainant was asked to pay the outstanding dues against the earlier connection but the complainant did not pay the outstanding dues rather filed an application on 10.4.2014 to check the meter installed against his service connection having consumer ID No. 500418850 and accordingly the technical staff of these Ops visited the complainant’s premises and checked the complainant’s meter on 11.4.2014 and found that the meter is correct one and recording correctly and the same was informed to the complainant in writing vide Memo. No. PCC/Tech/14-15/187, dated 11.04.2014 and 19.04.2014 again inspection was carried out on the premises of the complainant in presence of him and inspite of several requests the complainant neither handover nor show the meter against consumer ID No. 514042573 and the Ops could not raise the final bill due to non-cooperation of the complainant. Accordingly the service connection of the complainant has been disconnected on 19.04.2014 in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act and Rules framed thereunder and these Ops crave leave to file the list of total outstanding dues against both the service connection at the time of hearing. Actually the complainant knowing everything to evade the outstanding dues, the legitimate claim of the Ops filed the instant case which is fit to be dismissed with costs. These Ops further beg to submit that in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder if there is any dispute reading payment of energy bills or its payment made thereof that should be ventilated before the Regulatory Commission or before the authority or person empowered by the said Act and as such having any alternative and appropriate Forum, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try the instant case consequently the same is fit to be dismissed with costs.
On considering the claim application along with written objection, the only point for consideration is whether the present claim of the claimant as well as Ops justified or not according to law?
Decision with reasons:-
Admittedly claimant is a consumer having an electric connection being service connection No. 500418850 and consumer no. C074887 and the claimant used the said connection at his dwelling house at Ayama, PO: Shilampur, District: Burdwan and it is also admitted that he paid bill amount of Rs. 472=00 in connection being bill dated 10.01.2014 and also paid Rs. 468=00 being bill dated 09.04.2014 and no further bill is pending for payment in connection with consumer No. C074887 but dispute arose on the ground as per case of the OP that the complainant had another domestic electric connection bearing consumer ID No. 514042573 and the same was disconnected on 10.10.2011 due to outstanding dues of Rs. 6,167=00 for the billing month 06/2011 to 12/2011.
To prove the same Ops have produced (1) Xerox copy of ruling reported in (2007) SCC 381, Xerox copy of Notice being No. PC.C.C./Revenue/13-14/6245, dated 31.03.2014, Xerox copy of notice being No. P.C.C.C./Tech/14-15/187, dated 11.04.2014, Xerox copy of prescribed form No. NBSE DCL, Xerox copy of Regulation 46 and Xerox copy of list of outstanding dues in respect of Kartick Chandra Hazra and Biplob Hazra’s service connection and the allegation is that inspite of non-payment of bill amount of Rs. 6,167=00. The complainant has taken another service connection in the same premises on 30.12.2012 upon false declaration.
Let us consider how far complainant is able to prove that his electric connection has been disconnected by the OP illegally inspite of full payment as per bill and it appears that complainant has already proved the same by documents which are not challenged by the Ops and at the same time the Ops also stated that electric connection of the complainant disconnected due to non-payment of bill amount of Rs. 6,167=00 for consumer ID No. 514042573 which has also been disconnected on 10.10.2011, so total onus lies upon Ops to prove the same, as complainant never stated anything regarding consumer ID No. 514042573 and also as the Ops were kept mum regarding the same prior to file the present claim application, and further as the Ops have nothing to say regarding payment of the present electric connection which used by the complainant as domestic consumption.
It also appears that present claim application filed on 02.03.2015 against the Ops for reconnection of electric consumption in respect of consumer no. C074887 on demand of full payment and further he also visited the office of the Ops to solve the problem but Ops have not yet taken any steps to solve the same even refused to receive the letter dated 10.4.2014, on the contrary, Ops stated that one electric connection having consumer ID No. 514042573 is still existing at the premises of the complainant, i.e., at Village – Ayama, PO: Shilampur and said electric connection has already been disconnected on 18.10.2011 for outstanding dues of Rs. 6,167=00 and the complainant has taken another service connection in the same premises on 30.12.2012 without payment of claim amount against the said disconnected connection and accordingly notice vide Memo No. PCC/Revenue/13-14/6245, dated 31.3.2014 issued to the complainant and he received the same on 01.4.2014 but he did not pay the outstanding dues and inspite of payment, he filed an application on 10.04.2014 to check the meter against service connection having consumer No. 500418850 and for that reasons, Ops have been compelled to disconnect the electric connection on 19.4.2014.
It further appears that amount of Rs. 6,167=00 is due for consumer ID No. 514042573 which was in the name of Kartick Chandra Hazra, father of the complainant but not consumer ID No. 500418850 which used by the present complainant as domestic purpose for his family members.
It also appears that Ops never alleged that due amount of Rs. 6,167=00 is pending for non-payment of bill in consumer ID No. 500418850, so from the behaviors and attitude of the Ops clearly should that nothing is pending for payment of the consumer No. used by the complainant as domestic purpose/residential purpose.
It further appear that as per case of Ops the complainant has taken another consumer ID No. 500418850 when he had another consumer number without surrender the same by false statements, but it is fact that claimant paid money as per bill in favour of consumer ID No. 500418850 and Ops also admitted that consumer ID No. 514042573 was disconnected on 18.10.2011.
Ops also failed to produce any bill to show that amount of Rs. 6,167=00 was due for which they disconnected the consumer number used by the complainant.
So on considering the facts and circumstances there is no doubt that consumer No. 514042573 was issued in favour of Kartick Hazra, so total responsibility lies upon the said Kartick Chandra Hazra (since deceased) for payment of due amount, if at all any amount was due and Ops have every right to recover the said pending amount by filing separate application but not the present claim application as the present application filed by the complainant for reconnection his electric meter which illegally disconnected by Ops on 19.4.2014 and the complainant/claimant has no liability to pay the said due amount. Moreover it appears this claimant has not suppressed any incident at the time of receiving consumer No. 500418850 as at the time of filing application for new connection. Previous connection was disconnected and it was well within knowledge of the Ops and for that new connection issued in favour of the claimant.
So, when new connection issued by the Ops, the question of suppressing fact does not and cannot arise at all and the claimant is not entitled to pay any alleged amount as per claim by the Ops.
Beside that it appears that Ops were silent for the said non-payment of due amount but after filing the present claim application by the claimant then only Ops also claim that Rs. 6,167=00 was due.
So claim on behalf of the Ops were not genuine and as such they are not entitled to get any relief as there is no pending amount in respect of consumer No. 500418850.
So, accordingly it is clear that Ops illegally disconnected the electric connection of the claimant which is not permitted according to law and as such the present application is allowed and Ops are duty bound to take steps for reconnection of consumer ID No. issued by the Ops in favour of the claimant as the claimant has not suppressed anything at the time of issue electric connection consumer No. 500418850. On the otherhand, the Ops are well within knowledge that Rs. 6,167=00 is due for consumer No. 514042573, issued in favour of Kartick Chandra Hazra and not in favour of the present claimant and further the said connection has already been disconnected on 18.10.2011.
It also appears that Ops issued notice for outstanding dues against connection (disconnected domestic) consumer ID No. 514042573 along with notice for disconnection if any other connection at same premises due to outstanding dues and to taken connection with misguiding/false declaration dated 31.03.2014 when Kartick Ch. Hazra died and the present claimant has no liability regarding consumer ID No. 514042573 issued in the name of Kartick Chandra Hazra (since deceased).
Under such circumstances it appears that the claimant is able to prove that he is entitled to get an order for reconnection his electric line which has already been disconnected illegally by the Ops.
Hence claim application is succeeded.
So, it is
O r d e r e d
that the present claim application being No. 68/2015 be and the same is considered and allowed on contest with cost.
The Ops are directed to pay Rs. 2,000=00 as compensation for illegal disconnection of the electric service of the complainant and harassment, mental pain and agony within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which it will carry penal interest @7% per annum for the default period.
The Ops are hereby directed to reconnect the Consumer ID No. 500418850 which used by the claimant for his domestic purpose within fifteen days from the date of the order without fail, failing which claimant is permitted to execute the order according to law/as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
(Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Nivedita Ghosh)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Nivedita Ghosh)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
