Before: Hon’ble Member, Debi Sengupta.
Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.
FINAL ORDER
Samaresh Kumar Mitra, 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 is a consumer of the OP being Consumer I.D. No.167102429 and his electric line was disconnected in an arbitrary and illegal manner by the OP on 11.3.2013 and reconnected according to the prayer of the complainant and subsequently disconnected on 11.7.2013. then the OP sent an electric bill dated 27.7.2013 for the month of April,2006 to June,2013 mentioning the total bill Rs. 86,278/- and delay charge of Rs.39,627/-. He stated installment numbers, due dates and installments amounts, in which 6 installment amounts has been fixed to Rs.20,984/- each. The abovementioned electric bill in comparison with the previous electric connection bill is totally arbitrary, improper illegal and violative of mandatory provision of the electricity act. The complainant filed the applications of the petitioner dated 11.3.2013,11.7.2013 and the corresponding bills. He filed applications before the OP but of no effect and getting no alternative the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum for redresssal prayed to declare the electric bill dated 27.7.2013 improper, illegal & arbitrary, to declare the disconnection of electric connection as improper, illegal & arbitrary, to restore the power in respect of power connection being consumer being I.D. no.167102429 and an award of Rs.10,000/- 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 as a matter of fact the amount of bill as claimed by the WBSEDCL is as per consumption of energy and the petitioner himself prayed before the WBSEDCL for making installments of the said bill amount of Rs.125,905/- through easy installments. The application of the petitioner was granted by the OP and the petitioner was asked to make payment of the said amount through 5 installments. The petitioner paid only one installment and Rs.83936/- + Rs.7748/- is still lying due from the petitioner. The petitioner keeping the said huge amount due has lastly paid Rs.2691/- for the month of Oct., Nov. and Dec.2013. The OP is contemplating to disconnect service connection for nonpayment of the huge public revenue. The answering OP restored the power connection of the complainant in accordance with the order of the Ld. Forum so the complainant taking advantage kept a huge amount due. The instant petition has got no merit at all. He filed the petition to avoid his liability of making payment of huge arrear bills so it liable to be rejected with cost.
The complainant filed affidavit in chief which is nothing but replica of complaint petition.
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 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 April,2006 to June 2013 as a result a huge amount was accumulated and after getting bills of accumulated units the complainant filed a petition to make installments and the OP company allowed installments and after paying a single installment he stopped the payment 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 the instant case being 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. Thereafter complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum for redressal prayed to declare the electric bill dated 27.7.2013 improper, illegal & arbitrary, to declare the disconnection of electric connection as improper, illegal & arbitrary, to restore the power in respect of power connection being consumer being I.D. no.167102429 and an award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost and other reliefs as per law and equity.
The OP denied the allegations as leveled against them and averred that the amount of bill as claimed by the WBSEDCL is as per consumption of energy and the petitioner himself prayed before the WBSEDCL for making installments of the said bill amount of Rs.125,905/- through easy installments. The application of the petitioner was granted by the OP and the petitioner was asked to make payment of the said amount through 5 installments. The petitioner paid only one installment and Rs.83936/- + Rs.7748/- is still lying due from the petitioner. The petitioner keeping the said huge amount due has lastly paid Rs.2691/- for the month of Oct., Nov. and Dec.2013. The answering OP restored the power connection of the complainant in accordance with the order of the Ld. Forum so the complainant taking advantage, kept a huge amount due. He filed the instant petition to avoid his liability of making payment of huge arrear bills so it liable to be rejected with cost.
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. And subsequently the electric bill raises to Rs.1,56,359/- during the period of argument in the month of Nov.2017 but the complainant could not pay the present as well as arrear bills despite the OP by a letter dated 7/4/2016 claimed current bill amounting to Rs.21,633/- excluding the alleged amount as stated in the complaint petition. During the pendency of the complaint petition this complainant got two interim orders of reconnecting the power of the complainant but failed to show good gesture by paying the bill as per consumption as well as the installments as agreed to pay. 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. 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 redresssal 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.132/2013 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.
