Before: Hon’ble President, Biswanath De.
Hon’ble Member, Debi Sengupta.
Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.
FINAL ORDER
Debi Sengupta, Member.
By filing this complaint u/s 12 of the C. P. Act 1986, the complainant Tapan Kumar Das prays for an order directing the OP to restore electric connection as soon as possible and further to pay compensation for mental agony and tension and litigation cost.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he used to pay regular bills according to the meter reading. A consumer dispute case was pending before this Forum being C.C. case No.132/2013 and in the said case the power of the complainant restored according to the order of the Forum. That during the pendency of the complaint petition the complainant used to deposit regular electric bills according to the meter reading. Meanwhile the OP sent a bill for the month of October, November and December 2014 claiming an amount of Rs.114248/-, Rs 768/- and Rs.768/- respectively. He met the OP who assured to settle the matter shortly. He received next bill for the month of January, February and March,2015 amounting to Rs.116208/-. Again he met the OP who assured to settle the bill by March, 2015. Then the OP without giving any notice to the complainant disconnected the power connection of the complainant on 19.3.2015 in an arbitrary manner. Being aggrieved the complainant sent a notice to the OP on 13.10.2014 by registered post with A/D and later sent another notice on 19.3.2015 by Ld. Adv. The op and his men used filthy language towards the family members of the complainant and demanded Rs.10,000/- for restoration of power. Getting no alternative the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum for redresssal prayed to restore the power in respect of power connection being consumer no.51400, an award of Rs.100,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost and other reliefs as per law and equity.
The OP filed written version denying the allegations as leveled against them and averred that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as it relates to billing dispute. The complainant by suppressing the earlier case obtained ad interim order dated 5.8.2015 & 15.4.2016 as a result the answering OP suffered irreparable loss. As a matter of fact the petitioner has domestic connection having load 99 KW and his meter condition is good but he kept arrear due from April,2006 upto June,2013 so the due amount raises to Rs.86227/-. When the claimed amount became Rs.125905/- the complainant prayed for installments and filed representation dated 11.3.2013 & 17.7.2013 to the OP and his prayer was allowed for paying the due amount in six installments. Due to nonpayment’s of the said amount the power connection of the complainant disconnected. In relation to C.C. case No.132 of 2013 the power connection of the complainant was restored vide order dated 13.8.2013 with a direction to pay the installment but the petitioner paid only 1st installment amounting to Rs.20984/- and paid not a single farthing since then. After payment of Rs.20984/- the due remains Rs.135234/-. Then the OP sent a letter requesting to pay the current billing amount excluding the installments amount of Rs.20984/- but the petitioner ignored the letter. The petitioner by a letter dated 19.3.2016 enquired before the OP whether his service connection has been disconnected or not. In the reply the OP stated that his service connection is live and he is enjoying electricity. The petitioner only to avoid the huge amount liability filed the case.
The complainant filed affidavit in chief which is nothing but replica of complaint petition.
The OP filed written affidavit in chief which is 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 Tapan Kumar Das 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 Tapan Kumar Das 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 and paying bills and during that period he filed a C.C.case being case no.132/2013 and subsequently filed another complaint case being no 84/2015 before the CDRF, Hooghly having similar nature. The electricity bills of the consumer was due from April2006 to June 2013 as a result a huge amount was accumulated and after getting accumulated units the complainant filed a petition to make installments and the OP company allowed installments and after paying a single installments the payment became stopped as a result the OP disconnected the power connection of the complainant for nonpayment of current bills as well installment amounts. The complainant casting aside the payment filed two complaint cases before this Forum for redresssal. In C.C. Case No.132/2013 the complainant got two interim orders to reconnect the power connection despite huge amount of bill is pending before the OP. The instant case being case No.84/2015 in which the complainant prayed directions to restore the electric connection, not to disconnect the power connection and claim arbitrary bill amount, an award of compensation amounting to Rs.100000/- and litigation cost and other reliefs as per law and equity.
Perusing the case record, complaint petition, written version and documents and hearing the arguments that a huge amount of electric bill is due from the period 2006 to 2013 amounting to Rs.86227/- but it is not paid in full till date. During the pendency of the complaint petition this complainant got two interim orders of reconnecting the power of the complainant. The complainant as well the OP produced not a scrap of paper in respect of payment of arrear bills and current bills. So the bonfide of the complainant is questionable. The general phenomenon of electric connection is that the complainant is under obligation to pay bills as per his/ her consumption. 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 redresssal should come with clean hands. It 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.84/2015 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.
Dictated and corrected by me. Samaresh Kr. Mitra, Member.
