This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Abdul Mannan Khan 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 pith and marrow the complainant’s case is that complainant is an aged farmer/cultivator and the owner of land on Dag no. 363, Khatian No. 586, J.L no. 737 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 long before 25 years being meter no. SF019784, having consumer no ID 164084020, Tarrif Class – C (T), installation no. 13429331.
Complainant further states that for the purpose of running pump sets electricity is required mainly for operating for 3-4 months in a year.
It is alleged by the complainant that he has received electric bill amounting to Rs. 1,68,349/- from the opposite parties. Complainant repeatedly requested to send correct bill. Thereafter complainant sent letter trough his ld. Advocate to opposite party no. 1 on 31.8.2016 for necessary adjustment and for restoration of electric connection, but all in vain. Thereafter opposite no. 4 issued a letter dt. 9.9.2016 asking complainant to attend a hearing on 15.9.2016 and on 15.9.2016 complainant though reached the office, but there was nobody present on that day at that office. Complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony due to unlawful disconnection of meter by the opposite parties. The cause of action arose on 31.12.2014 when the inflated electric bill raised by the opposite parties and then when opposite parties disconnected the electric meter and again on 31.8.2016 when complainant sent a letter through his ld. Advocate and cause of action continue.
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 the WBSEDCl is as per consumption of energy and the billing amount was prepared as per consumption of units. It is also highlighted that the billing amount of Rs. 1,68,349/- dt. 15.1.2016 is a matter of record. It is also denied categorically by the opposite party no. 5 about the alleged arrival of the complainant at the office of opposite parties on the relevant date and opposite party no. 5 also stated that as a matter of fact, the complainant did not attain the office of opposite party no. 5 and also did not meet with opposite party no. 5. It is specifically stated by the opposite party no. 5 that due to non-payment of huge amount of Rs. 2,37,969/- (upto 20.6.2017), the public enterprise like opposite party no. 1 has sustained heavy economic loss. It is also stated by the opposite party no. 5 that as per verbal request of the complainant and instalment plan of three instalments was made on total amount of Rs. 115957/- setting aside an amount of Rs. 68216/- (after reviewing all factors past records) for which instalment was done earlier on 9.4.2013 and however, complainant paid first instalment of Rs. 40,000/- on 31.12.2004 and failed to pay the next instalment in time. It is also stated by the opposite party no. 5 that on 24.2.2015 complainant approach to the opposite party no. 5 to deposit Rs. 38,000/- expressing his inability to pay within stipulated date. Considering the situation, complainant deposited the same on 24.2.2015, but he did not pay the third and final instalment, resultantly the instalment plan got frustrated and cancelled as per norms of the WBSEDCL. Opposite party no.5 also states that the disconnection of electric meter has effected as per norms of WBSEDCL and not wrongfully nor illegally. Opposite party no. 5 categorically states that on 15.9.2016 complainant as a matter of fact, neither came to the office of opposite party no. 5 nor complainant attended the hearing. Opposite party no. 5 also states that the outstanding views as on 20.6.2017 stands as Rs.169753/- along with Rs. 68,216/- ( Rs. 2,37,969/- in total) as outstanding. Finally opposite party no. 5 has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
No other opposite parties file any written version.
Upon the pleadings of the parties following points have been set out for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite parties?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether the opposite parties carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
- 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
Point 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.
Point No.2
Both the complainant and opposite party nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are residents/carrying on business or having their offices 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.
Point 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 in so many words has highlighted that he has been deprived from enjoying the energy of electricity as the opposite parties have disconnected his meter, but from the affidavit-in-chief of the complainant it is clear that on two occasions that is on complainant made payment of Rs. 40,000/- on 31.12.2014 and thereafter Rs. 38,000/- on 25.2.2015. Facts remain that the contents of affidavit-in-chief of complainant appears to be a replica of his complaint.
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. 5 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.
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. Counselappearing 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. 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 and pilferage of power, only the deficiency of service of the opposite party is tenable before 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.
Point NO 4
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we have no hesitations to come to a conclusion that complaint has totally failed to prove his case. Thus, the opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
Hence, it is,
-
that the complaint case being no. 114 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.
Dictated and corrected by me.
