The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a consumer of the OP for a long time and has been paying bills month by month. But all on a sudden the OP No.1 raised the bill from 1/2008 to 8/2010 for Rs.63577/- and forcefully collected installment with the threatening of disconnection for Rs.49905/- excess amount of Rs.19572/-. The petitioner met the OP No.1 and filed application with objection but paid the installments only for avoiding disconnection which may be caused for huge loss in cultivation and to take advantage the OPs made illegal and whimsical bills again and again. The OP No.1 installed new meter on 19.3.2012 is respect of reconnection petition on 02.02.2012 all on a sudden the bill dated 08.01.2013 shown Rs.9,394/- as outstanding although every average bill has been paid in regular basis. Thereafter the OP No.1 sent another bill including LPSC charges illegally for which the petitioner raised objection for non-taking reading for the months and thereafter the OP illegally disconnected the electric line without serving any notice. As a result of it the petitioner could not able to cultivate the crops and practically has been suffered a huge loss by the whimsical measure of the OP. The petitioner has been paid up the bills upto the month of February, 2015 and prayed for relief from illegal LPSC charges with threatening of disconnection without taking reading of consumption. For the illegal activities as well as deficiency of service on the part of the OP compelled the petitioner to file this petition before this Forum for relief and compensation. He prayed a decree against the opposite parties declaring that there is gross negligence and deficiency of service for illegal disconnection of meter without serving notice as per provision of law, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of illegal disconnection of electric shallow pump during proper season of cultivation and compensation of Rs.20000/- for harassment of physical and mental of the petitioner due to whimsical meter reading and consumption showing in the meter and litigation cost of Rs.10000/-.
The OP filed written version denying the allegations as leveled against them and averred that throughout the entire season the deep tube well is used for production of various crops and vegetables. The bills were raised as per meter reading when the same was found in good condition for the period from 1/2008 to 8/2010 but the petitioner did not pay those bills. The bill amount for the period amounting to Rs.63, 577/- was divided into 12 installments as per prayer of the petitioner out of which 5 installments have been paid by the petitioner himself without any protest and allegations. So at present he is under liability to pay 6 installments amounting to Rs.33279/- and to avoid the liability he filed the instant complaint against the OP. It is also admitted that meter was replaced on 19.3.2012 and bill have been prepared as per meter reading from 11/2012. As per norms of WBSEDCL the LPSC charges have been claimed for delay payment of outstanding dues. Records speaks that 9325 units was claimed during 31.3.2009 to 16.3.2010 as per physical meter reading and 10850 units was claimed during 16.3.2010 to 15.3.2011 as per meter reading. Average bill was claimed for 4/11 to 5/12 for 6500 units. The excess claimed unit was 162 but adjustment was given 181 units in subsequent bills. The petitioner is illegally withholding the payment of the billing amount and with some malfide motive has filled the present case. For nonpayment of the claimed amount of the WBSEDCL he is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum.
The OP filed affidavit in chief which is also the replica of the written version so it is needless to discuss.
Both sides filed affidavit in chief and written notes of arguments which are taken into consideration during the passing of final order.
The argument as advanced by the advocates of the parties heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Subhas Manna is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Subhas Manna is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant is consuming electricity as provided by the OP Company and he is paying bills so the petitioner is a complainant to the OP and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programs. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.
The O.P. herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The O.P. Company is providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffers from paying accumulated units at a higher rate and fails to provide powers to the consumers after taking quotation money. As a result the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy before the appropriate Forums. The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the OP Company tantamount to deficiency of service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.
After perusing the case record it appears that the complainant being the consumer of the OP is enjoying electricity under STW connection as he has shallow/ deep tube well to operate since January to May every year for supplying water for the Rabi Crops and the remaining periods of the year are not used properly as such the consumption show minimum unit. . But all on a sudden the OP No.1 raised the bill from 1/2008 to 8/2010 for Rs.63,577/- and forcefully collected installment with the threatening of disconnection for Rs.49,905/- excess amount of Rs.19,572/-. The petitioner met the OP No.1 and filed application with objection but paid the installments only for avoiding disconnection which may be caused for huge loss in cultivation and to take advantage the OPs made illegal and whimsical bills again and again. The OP No.1 installed new meter on 19.3.2012 in respect of reconnection petition on 02.02.2012 all on a sudden the bill dated 08.01.2013 shown Rs.9,394/- as outstanding although every average bill has been paid in regular basis. Thereafter the OP No.1 sent another bill including LPSC charges illegally for which the petitioner raised objection for non-taking reading for the months and thereafter the OP illegally disconnected the electric line without serving any notice. As a result of it the petitioner could not able to cultivate the crops and suffered a huge loss at the act of the OP. The petitioner has been paid up the bills up to the month of February, 2015 and prayed for relief from illegal LPSC charges with threatening of disconnection without taking reading of consumption.
The OP by filing written version denied the allegations as leveled against them and averred that throughout the entire season the deep tube well is used for production of various crops and vegetables and bills were raised as per meter reading when the same was found in good condition for the period from 1/2008 to 8/2010 but the petitioner did not pay those bills. The bill amount for the period amounting to Rs.63, 577/- was divided into 12 installments as per prayer of the petitioner out of which 5 installments have been paid by the petitioner himself without any protest and allegations. So at present he is under liability to pay 6 installments amounting to Rs.33,279/- and to avoid the liability he filed the instant complaint against the OP. It is also admitted that meter was replaced on 19.3.2012 and bill have been prepared as per meter reading from 11/2012. As per norms of WBSEDCL the LPSC charges have been claimed for delay payment of outstanding dues. Records speaks that 9325 units was claimed during 31.3.2009 to 16.3.2010 as per physical meter reading and 10850 units was claimed during 16.3.2010 to 15.3.2011 as per meter reading. Average bill was claimed for 4/11 to 5/12 for 6500 units. The excess claimed unit was 162 but adjustment was given 181 units in subsequent bills. The petitioner is illegally withholding the payment of the billing amount and with some malfide motive has filled the present case.
Perusing the case record, complaint petition, written version and documents and hearing the arguments that a huge amount of electric bill is remained outstanding and it is admitted by the complainant but apart from paying the same the complainant filed the instant complaint on different pleas. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant failed to show good gesture by paying the bill as per consumption as well as the installments as agreed to pay. The complainant assailed that he compelled to agree at the installments fixed by the OP with a fear of disconnection and subsequently paid 5 installments but at the relevant point of time he never approached before this Forum. The complainant produced not a scrap of paper in respect of payment of arrear bills and current bills. So the bonfide of the complainant is questionable.
It is needless to say that a court of law cannot pass any order on equitable grounds. It is true that having regard to the laudable object behind the legislation of the Act, to protect the interest of consumers, literal interpretation has to be placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper technical approach. While passing any order regarding the billing dispute we have to think that the bill raised by the OP/WBSEDCL is public money. And if there is any dispute regarding the bill then the complainant should approach the Central Grievance Redressal Officer. The general phenomenon of electric connection is that the complainant is under obligation to pay bills as per his/ her consumption. As per Electricity Act, 2003 and West Bengal Regulatory Commission Regulation, 2004 in case of disputed or erroneous bill the power has vested to the Regulatory Authority to assess the said bill and in this respect the Consumer Forum has no power. If any dispute arising out of billing then this Forum has no authority to interfere. Any dispute rather than the billing dispute and theft & pilferage of power, only the deficiency of service of the OP is tenable before this Forum.
From the above discussion we may come into this conclusion that the complaint before coming before this Forum for redressal on equitable ground should come with clean hands. It is the maxim of equity that “He who comes into equity must come with clean hands”. As the complainant could not prove his case by producing sufficient documents that OP is deficient in providing service to its consumer, so the prayer for relief before this Forum is not tenable.
4). whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant could not able to prove his case. So the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to this complainant.
ORDER
Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.125/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite party, with no order as to cost.
The Opposite Party is exonerated from his liability.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
