This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, SK Israil praying for an order directing the opposite parties for restoration of electric meter of the complainant, and also an order directing the opposite parties to assess the bills of the complainant properly and on scientific basis. Complainant also has prayed for an order that opposite party may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- only to complainant as he incurred loss due to disconnection of the said meter. Complainant also has prayed for Rs. 25,000/- each towards mental agony and deficiency of service respectively. 

          In epitome the complainant’s case is that complainant is an aged farmer/cultivator and the owner of land on Dag no. 42,101 and 117, Khatian No. 432, J.L no. 155 in mouza Santa at Jai Singh Chowk under PS Arambagh. Upon compliance of all required formalities, the WBSCDC Limited being opposite party no. 1 provided complainant with electric meter connection being meter no. RSK54699, having consumer no ID 164084094, Tarrif Class – C (T), installation no. 13429105.

          Complainant further states that for the purpose of running pump sets electricity is required mainly for operating ¾ months in a year.

          It is alleged by the complainant that he has received several inflated bills from the opposite parties. Complainant repeatedly requested to sent correct bills but all in vain. It is also alleged by the complainant that opposite party no. 1 wrongfully and illegally disconnected the above noted electric meter for which complainant has suffered financial loss specially, because for want of electricity cultivation of the complainant has been hampered. Finding no other alternative complainant through his ld. Advocate sent representation to the opposite party no. 1 on 31.8.2016 for correction of the bills and for restoration of electric connection. On 28.8.2014 complainant sent a letter to the opposite party no. 4. The cause of action arose on 28.8.2014 when complainant sent a letter to opposite party no. 4 and subsequently when the opposite parties disconnected the said meter and again on 31.8.2016 when complainant sent a letter through his ld. Advocate.  

          Hence, this case

          Opposite party no. 5 has filed written version denying the material allegations and averred that as a matter of fact as claimed by WBSEDCl is as per consumption of energy and as per verbal request of the consumer and instalment plan of four instalments were made on 2.1.2015 on the total amount of Rs. 67,609/- setting aside an amount of Rs. 8581/- (after reviewing all factors past records) for which instalment was done earlier on 30.3.2013. However, the consumer paid first instalment of Rs. 16,903/- on 2.1.2015, but failed to pay the next instalments in time and as there was deviation from instalments plan, automatically the said plan got frustrated and cancelled as per norms of the WBSEDCL.

          It is also highlighted by opposite party no. 5 that the outstanding dues as on 27.6.2017 stood as Rs. 2,87,761/- along with Rs. 8,581/- as outstanding others mentioned in the said written version. It is also stated by the opposite party no. 5 that it is also seen that there is no such incident or occasion where the meter was considered to be defective. Further opposite party no. 5 states that the case of the petitioner has got no merit at all and the present case is barred by Law of Limitation. Finally, opposite party no. 5 states that complaint case not having any merit deserves to be dismissed with cost.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION  

1. Whether the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite parties?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the opposite parties carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite parties as alleged and whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Issue No. 1

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 opposite parties and complainant has paid the bill, so, the complainant is none but purely a complainant to the opposite parties and it is admitted by the opposite parties being the service providers.

Issue No.2

Both the complainant and opposite parties 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 this case.

ISSUE No. 3

The opposite parties 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 implementation a lot of Govt. programs. So, the role of the opposite parties for the development of the society is unquestionable.

The opposite party no. 5 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 opposite parties are providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period. That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly benefited to the Company. While providing powers throughout the State the company 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 of which the consumers suffer from paying accumulated units at a higher rate and the company fails to provide powers to the consumers after taking quotation money. Consequently the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy before the appropriate Forum. The inaction/negligence/discrepancies of the opposite party company tantamount to deficiency of service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.

On careful perusal of the case record it appears that the complainant being the consumer of the opposite parties in his affidavit-in-chief has not narrated any specific sum, he has paid towards any bill and his affidavit-in-chief does not indicate at all how much amount he has paid towards payment of electricity bill/bills. It is pertinent to note that in so many words complainant has highlighted that he has been deprived from enjoying the energy of electricity as the opposite parties have disconnected his meter, but within four corners of his affidavit-in-chief there is not any iota of payment towards any bill on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, opposite party no. 1 by making a petition has stood strictly to the contents of written version of the opposite party no. 5 and has prayed for treating the same as examination-in-chief on behalf of the opposite party no. 5 wherein opposite party no. 1 emphatically and palpably highlighted that complainant with his sweet will is trying to by-pass to make any payment of bills and at the same time tried to use his right to enjoy energy of electricity which is illegal and highly against the principles of natural justice. Apart from that on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 several photocopies of documents have been filed under firisti in support of their case which also includes the complaint letter made by the complainant addressing to the opposite party no. 5 and the photocopy of ld. Advocate’s letter on behalf of the complainant addressing to opposite party no. 1 and it is also appearing from the documents that on behalf of opposite parties correspondence has been made with the complainant. That apart a bunch of photocopies of electric bills stand in the name of the complainant have been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 and according to the ld. Advocate of the opposite party no. 1 are totally unpaid by the complainant.

On careful perusal of the case record including complaint petition, written version and photocopy of documents and touching upon the submissions advanced by the ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 5. It appears that a huge amount of electric bills is due and payable by the complainant relating to the relevant period, even it is this Forum does not find any attempt on behalf of the complainant to clear the said dues. It is to be highlighted that if any dispute arising out of billing, then this Forum has no authority to interfere with the same and further it may be stated that any dispute rather than billing dispute like theft, pilferage of power etc. only be treated as the deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties which can be looked into by this Forum.

From the above discussion we may come to a conclusion that we are not noticing that complainant is very clean particularly, upon his alleged redressal. The maxim of equity is that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. Therefore, the prayer for relief made by the complainant is not tenable and appreciable at all.

ISSUE NO 4

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we have no hesitations to come to a conclusion that complaint has totally fail to prove his case. Thus, the opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being no. 115 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against opposite party no. 5 and ex parte against the rest.

There will be no order as to cost.

Let a copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/ their ld. Advocates on record by hand with proper acknowledgement/ send by ordinary course for information and necessary action.