West Bengal

Howrah

CC/169/2022

SMT. PAYEL HAZRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

WBSEDCL - Opp.Party(s)

Debabrata Ghosh

27 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HOWRAH
20, Round Tank Lane, P.O. and P.S. Howrah, Dist. Howrah-711 101.
Office (033) 2638 0892, 0512 Confonet (033) 2638 0512 Fax (033) 2638 0892
 
Complaint Case No. CC/169/2022
( Date of Filing : 28 Jun 2022 )
 
1. SMT. PAYEL HAZRA
W/O. Sri Debasish Hazra, Baltikuri, Shibtala, P.S. Dasnagar, Howrah 711113.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. WBSEDCL
Dasnagar Group Electric Supply, P.O. and P.S. Dasnagar, Baltikuri, Howrah 70091.
2. The Station Manager, WBSEDCL
Dasnagar Group Electric Supply, P.O. and P.S. Dasnagar, Baltikuri, Howrah 70091.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Debasish Bandyopadhyay PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Dhiraj Kumar Dey MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Minakshi Chakraborty MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 27 Nov 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Presented by:

Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :

This instant case has been filed by the complainant under section 2G of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. As per submission of the complainant, Complainant maintains her family by running a business under the name and style of M/S. Hazra Engineering Works. As per submission of the complainant she subsequently shifted the said business at premises situated within Word No.49 of H.M.C, Mouza-Balitikuri P.S. Jagacha District Howrah which property was owned by the mother-in-law of the present complainant. The complainant applied before the O.ps. for electric connection in the name of M/S. Hazra Engineering Works and her husband paid the amount of Rs.15,365/- as security deposit and Rs.17,490/- as service connection charge as per quotation dated 20/03/2018. The O.ps. installed meter at the said premises but with utter surprise of the complainant within few hours the said meter was removed without any notice to the complainant. When the complainant enquired about the incident the O.ps. replied that the meter was defective and they would install new meter as early as possible. After lapse of certain time, the O.ps. sent a letter vide memo no.SM/DU/1990 dated 31/03/2022 demanding a sum of Rs.2,38,986/- as dues against one M/S Taraknath Bright Bar Pvt. Ltd. with whom the petitioner was no nexus at any point of time but only to run their business the petitioner through her husband deposited the said amount, in spite of that O.ps. are further demanded a sum of Rs.7,94,707.95/- as late payment surcharged for which the complainant has to file the instant Consumer Case.  

As per submission of the complainant she is not at all liable to pay the outstanding dues of the other with which she has no nexus in any manner and the claim of the O.ps. are nothing but arbitrary, illegal, imaginary and to put the complainant into trouble for illegal gain.

The complainant files the instant complaint petition praying for a direction upon the O.ps. to give industrial connection at her premises with a further direction to refund the sum of Rs.2,38,986/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,42,014/- for harassment and compensation.

DEFENCE CASE:

O.ps. enter their appearance by filing w.v. denying inter alia all the materials allegation leveled against them. The specific case of the O.ps. is that: -

One Debasish Hazra, proprietor of M/S, Hazra Engineering Work applied for new service connection for industrial purpose vide application no.1004334731 dated 20/03/2018 and one computer generated bill was handed over to said Debasish Hazra who paid the service connected charge of Rs.17,490/- and also paid security deposit of Rs.15,365/- on 09/06/2018. The enlisted contractor of W.B.S.E.D.C.L. was entrusted with the work for connection of meter who visited the place on 11/07/2018 and detected that old bulk connection was outstanding to the tune of Rs.2,38,986/-. One prayer was made from the side of enlisted contractor seeking details of outstanding dues of said premises and they came to know that the said outstanding of Rs.2,38,986/- stands in the name of M/S Taraknath Bright Bar Pvt. Ltd. As per submission of O.ps. on 18/01/2022 and 16/02/2022 the said Engineering Works expressed their intension to pay all the due amounts but on 31/03/2022 office of O.p. no.1 informed the said Engineering Works about their inability of effecting service connection in the said premises due to non-payment of said outstanding amounts. According to O.ps. on 18/04/2022 M/S Taraknath Bright Bar Pvt. Ltd paid the said outstanding amounts of Rs.2,38,986/- through Bank Draft. As per procedure of W.B.S.E.D.C.L., they will impose late payment surcharge in case there is any late payment and for which they claimed Rs.7,94,707.95/- on 28/04/2022 in the name of  M/S Taraknath Bright Bar Pvt. As per submission of the O.ps. on 02/09/2022 the entire fact was communicated to M/S, Hazra Engineering Work and their inability to provide connection on the suit property.

According to the O.ps. the complainant is not at all a consumer as She has no nexus with said M/S, Hazra Engineering Work for which the present complaint petition is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary cost.    

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyer of both parties

Complainant has filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA., evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the case.

Heard argument of both sides at length. In course of argument Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by them.

In spite of filing w.v. and questionnaire O.p. nos.1 & 2 by filing an application stated that they would not file any evidence on affidavit and no B.N.A. has been filed by O.p. nos.1 & 2.  

From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

  1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
  2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
  3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
  4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?

DECISION WITH REASONS

       Issue no.1:

   In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019. The point is thus answered in the affirmative.

Issue no.2:

  As all the parties have their address within the district of Howrah and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission, this commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint case. This point thus disposed of accordingly.

ISSUE  3& 4

Both the issues are taken into consideration for the sake of convenience.

 The Complainant maintains her family by running a business under the name and style of M/S. Hazra Engineering Works. As per submission of the complainant she subsequently shifted the said business at premises situated within Word No.49 of H.M.C, Mouza-Balitikuri P.S. Jagacha District Howrah which property was owned by the mother-in-law of the present complainant. The complainant applied before the O.ps. for electric connection in the name of M/S. Hazra Engineering Works and her husband paid the amount of Rs.15,365/- (photocopy issued by W.B.S.E.D.C.L. dated 20/03/2018 alongwith money receipt issued by W.B.S.E.D.C.L. standing in the name of M/S. Hazra Engineering Works dated 09/06/2018 annexed) as security deposit and Rs.17,490/- as service connection charge as per quotation dated 20/03/2018. The O.ps. installed meter at the said premises but with utter surprise of the complainant within few hours the said meter was removed without any notice to the complainant. When the complainant enquired about the incident the O.ps. replied that the meter was defective and they would install new meter as early as possible. After lapse of certain time, the O.ps. sent a letter vide memo no.SM/DU/1990 dated 31/03/2022 (letter issued by W.B.S.E.D.C.L. to M/S. Hazra Engineering Works annexed) demanding a sum of Rs.2,38,986/- as dues against one M/S Taraknath Bright Bar Pvt. Ltd. with whom the petitioner was no nexus at any point of time but only to run their business the petitioner through her husband deposited the said amount (photocopy of Bank Draft issued by Bank of India dated 16/04/2022 is annexed), in spite of that O.ps. are further demanded a sum of Rs.7,94,707.95/- as late payment surcharged for which the complainant has to file the instant Consumer Case. 

In spite of submitting w.v. O.ps. have not filed any single scrap of paper to substantiate their statement neither they have produced any documents to show that the claim made by the complainant is vexatious or arbitrary or illegal, no evidence has been shown before this Commission as to whether any step was taken by the O.ps. to recover the alleged outstanding dues from the previous occupier in the premises and whether there has been any nexus between the previous occupier M/S Taraknath Bright Bar Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant, rather the complainant has submitted the documents to show that she has paid the amount time to time claimed by the O.ps. through M/S. Hazra Engineering Works, which is a company running by the present complainant for her livelihood and also for maintaining her family. The complainant alongwith the complaint petition has filed the photocopy of one old complaint case being HDF.15/2014 filed by one Sri Sudip Chatterjee against the same O.ps. and with the utter surprise in that case also the O.ps. claimed the same amount from Sri Sudip Chatterjee which was dues against M/S Taraknath Bright Bar Pvt. Ltd. That Sudip Chatterjee who was one of the purchaser of the same holding that purchased by the mother-in-law of the present complainant. Hon’ble the then Consumer Forum, Howrah was pleased to pass an order by allowing the CC/15/2014 (HDF/15/2014) on contest but without any cost. The then Forum was pleased to direct to effect industrial Electric Connection to the premises mentioned in the schedule in (HDF/15/2014) within 30 days from the date of the order against which the present O.ps. preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to affirm the order of the then District Forum in appeal case vide No.A/1267/2014.

Taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, this Commission is of the view that this is a practice of the present O.ps. for not providing the new meter to the complainant and for which they are using the same name against whom huge amount was outstanding. As per submission of the complainant she is not at all liable to pay the outstanding dues of the other with which she has no nexus in any manner and the claim of the O.ps. are nothing but arbitrary, illegal, imaginary and to put the complainant into trouble for illegal gain.

The claim by the O.ps. appears to us as bizarre and bogus as the complainant has no nexus with the previous user. Mother-in-law of the present complainant became owner of the said property by way of purchase and she gave permission to the present complainant to run her business under the name and style of  M/S. Hazra Engineering Works. This business is the only source of income of her family.

If the previous consumer had left keeping the bills unpaid, the O.ps. have remedy in the provision of Section 170 of the Electricity Act, 2003. They cannot deprive the complainant from the benefit of new connection which is essential for the maintenance of her livelihood. She has already paid the requisite charges claimed by the O.ps.

We, are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed with cost.

Both the issues are thus disposed of.

                                                  O R D E R E D

That the Complaint case no 169 of 2022 be and the same is allowed on contest alongwith cost.

The complainant do get electric connection from O.p. no.1 (W.B.S.E.D.L.) within 45 days from date. The petitioner do arrange for free access of the personnel of O.p. no.1 to provide electric connection on a particular point for installation of electric meter.

The complainant do get refund of Rs.2,38,986/- alongwith interest to the tune of Rs.9% per annum from O.ps. from the initiation of the instant C.C. case till realization.

Complainant do further get Rs.50,000/- for compensation toward harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost from the O.ps. within 45 days from date.  

In case O.ps failed to comply this order within the stipulated period, complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law.

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 and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website The word file is drafted and corrected by me.

 

(Minakshi Chakraborty)

                 Member

D.C.D.R.C., Howrah

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Debasish Bandyopadhyay]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dhiraj Kumar Dey]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Minakshi Chakraborty]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.