This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.P./ WBSEDCL to a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- compensation for mental agony+ and harassment and Rs.5,000/- litigation cost for deficiency in service.

The complaint case in short is that the complainant has engineering workshop and is a consumer of O.P. having a industrial service connection in the business premises at Bindole, Raiganj vide Consumer ID No.432133210. He took a loan from SBI Raiganj of Rs.20,00,000/- in the business and has to repay the installments in due time. He has 25 permanent skilled laborers to run the workshop, but from ‘March to October’ the voltage of service connection became low, he failed to start machines and faces serious loss. He had to pay the laborers, the bank installments. He informed the matter to the O.P. on several occasions to solve the matter but the O.P. never cares. This is a clear case of deficiency in service and he files this case praying for compensation as stated above.

The O.P./ WBSEDCL appeared and contested the case by filing written version; while he denied all the allegations of deficiency of service and supply of low voltage and loss in the business of the complainant etc. O.P. stated that admittedly petitioner is an industrial consumer but he has a huge outstanding dues amounting to Rs.1,17,997/- for nonpayment of outstanding dues till the date of filing of W.V. on 08.09.2014. In spite of repeated demand he failed to pay outstanding dues. Even petitioner gave a stiff resistance whenever O.P. went to disconnect the service connection for such nonpayment. Thereby O.P. wrongfully gain suppressing material facts avoid payment of outstanding dues. The story of fluctuating the voltage function is totally false. The voltage capacity is maintained by the source and the transformer from where the complainant is getting his service connection is always in a normal voltage condition. Therefore there is no deficiency in service and negligency on the part of the O.P. and he prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

To establish the complaint case, the complainant and the O.P. have relied upon some documents as well as affidavit-in-chief of complainant. Complainant as P.W.1 was also cross-examined by O.P.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, arguments advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

It is admitted fact that the complainant is a bonafide consumer having commercial electric connection of O.P./ WBSEDCL. It is also admitted that he is running a workshop in the said premises at village, Bindone under PS Raiganj. However, the petitioner has no document to rely that he has 25 skilled laborers to run the workshop. Complainant failed to produce any scrap of paper or any register to prove that he employed 25 skilled laborers in his workshop. The document Form No.11 of Bindole Gram Panchayet No.4 is the registration certificate for the year 2013-14 of the engineering job works at Bindole of the complainant, Akbar Ali is filed only. Interestingly he did not mention specifically the period i.e. the year when he alleges there was low voltage supplied from the transformer causing failure to start the machine for production. Or that he was compelled to pay to his workers without any production and faces huge loss in business. For argument’s sake we can presume that the period of low voltage as alleged may be for the period March to October 2013 as the case is filed in Jul’14. Though in his evidence-in-chief, the complainant corrected the matter by stating “March to October of each year”. Therefore the complainant is not sure about the actual period of disputed electricity supplied in low voltage etc. Complainant also failed to produce any paper to show that he failed to repay the loan installment due to such loss in the business. 

Complainant deposed as P.W.1 and he was cross examined by the O.P. when he answered that the factory having two wielding machines with 1 HP. It is difficult to believe how the complainant employs 25 skilled laborers with the help of two such machines. P.W.1 deposed that he consumed electricity from the transformer about 250 feet away from his workshop. Two mini rice mills nearby also consume electricity from the same transformer. He alleges low voltage capacity of the transformer with single phase etc., but he certainly has no technical knowledge about voltage capacity. He did not take any expert opinion. At the same time he admits that O.P. raised bills showing outstanding amount of Rs.1,78,057/- till May, 2015. Nobody from the locality like rice mill owners or villagers ever alleges about low voltage. On the other hand O.P. produced the original log sheet books of Raiganj 132/133/11/ KV S/STN throughout the period of October, 2013. The date and time wise recording of the log sheet goes to show that 11 KV Bus Voltage more or less 11 to 11.5 in an average was supplied throughout the period of the month of Oct’13. There was no abnormality in voltage fluctuation during the time each and every hour. Needless to say there is any allegation of voltage fluctuation or low voltage from any consumer in that area.  

To prove the case complainant submitted electricity bills for the month of October, 2013 and November, 2013 showing consumption of 100 units and 152 units respectively. Both the electric bills showing outstanding dues from the month of July, 2012. The bill of October, 2013 is showing outstanding dues of Rs.48,240/- and of November, 2013 it is Rs.61,376/-. Complainant submits bill for the month of February, 2014 and March, 2014 showing consumption of 187 units and 2848 units respectively. The electricity bill for the month Feb’14 with an outstanding dues from Jul’12 amounting to Rs.77,777/- and the bill of Mar’14 shows outstanding dues Rs.79,296/-. In cross examination he also deposed that normally O.P. raises bills amounting to Rs.12,000 to Rs.15,000/-. And he admitted that he has an outstanding due of Rs.1,78,057/- at present. Therefore the arrear dues showing in the electricity bills are no abnormal for such period from Jul’12 till date.

We have gone through the evidence of complainant as P.W.1, the documents filed by the parties the electricity bills filed by the complainant and the log sheets of relevant Raiganj KV S/Station. The complainant failed to prove with cogent and supporting evidence, that he was supplied with low voltage of electricity in his industrial consumer connection; nor he produce any oral or documentary evidence regarding loss of his business as alleged. On the other hand admittedly he is defaulter in payment of electricity bill from the period of Jul’12 till filing of this case. In such circumstances this Forum cannot make the O.P. liable for making compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service.

So, we decided that the complainant has not been able to prove his case and he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the consumer complaint being No. CC - 60/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost against the O.P.

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