West Bengal

StateCommission

CC/281/2015

Saidul Islam Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Debesh Halder

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
Complaint Case No. CC/281/2015
 
1. Saidul Islam Khan
S/o, Lt. Rajjak Ali Khan, Vill - Durmuth, P.O - Durmuth, Dist - Purba Midnapore, Pin - 721 401.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Vidyut Bhawan, Salt Lake, Block - DJ, Sector - III, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700 091.
2. The Chief Engineer, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Vidyut Bhawan, Ist Floor, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 700 091.
3. The Assistant Engineer, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Marishda, Purba Mednapore, Pin - 721 401.
4. The Devisional Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Contai - (d) Division, Contai. Purba Midnapore, Pin - 721 401.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
none appears
 
For the Opp. Party: Mr. Srijan Nayak., Advocate
Dated : 16 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Date of filing : 30.07.2015

Date of  hearing : 09.01.2017

PER HON’BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

       The instant complaint under Section 17 (wrongly mentioned U/s.12 ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, “the Act” ) is at the instance of  a ‘Consumer’ against the Licensing Authority i.e. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and its Officers on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of them.

              In a capsulated form, complainant’s case is that he is a ‘Consumer’ under OP No.1 being Consumer Id – 223082071 and the said meter was installed at the complainants fuel pump viz. M/s. Hena Fuel Pump at Village and P.O. – Durmuth, District Purba Medinipur. Since the installation of meter i.e. from 2004 he was going on paying the electricity bill month- wise in time.  However, in the month of January – March, 2015 he has received a composite bill of Rs.3,23,999.31 p. for consumption of electricity for the aforesaid month. The complainant submits that the trend of electricity consumption was varying from Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/-. The complainant being aggrieved, filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Court by an order dated 12.05.2015 directed the OPs to restore the connection upon payment of entire outstanding dues by 20 equal monthly instalments and the OPs were directed to restore such connection immediately within two days from the date of communication of the order. The complainant has stated that the OPs did not reconnect the supply of electricity and violated the order of the Hon’ble HighCourt. Hence, the complaint with prayer for certain reliefs like – (a) to direct the OPs to restore the line upon payment ; (b) to pay compensation of Rs. 22,00,000/- for mental agony and loss and (c) litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- etc.

       The OP Nos. 1 to 4 by filing a joint written version have stated that the complainant has filed a writ petition being No. 9260 (w) of 2015 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 12.05.2015. However, the complainant did not comply with the  order of the Hon’ble High Court and as such the complaint should be dismissed with costs.

       On the basis of the contention of the parties, the following points are framed for adjudication :-

       (1) Is the complainant maintainable ?

       (2) Are the OPs deficient in rendering services to the complainant ?

       (3) Is the complainant entitled to the relief or reliefs, as prayed for  ?

       During hearing of the case, complainant has tendered evidence on affidavit against which questionnaire filed by the OP but no  reply was given by the complainant against the questionnaire set forth by the OPs.

       On behalf of OPs one Shri Subhendu Sarkar being Station Manager, WBSEDCL, Marisda, Purba Medinipur has filed evidence on affidavit against which no questionnaire has been filed by the complainant.  Both the parties have relied upon some documentary evidence.

       Now, we shall proceed to discuss how far the complainant has been able to substantiate the case.

DECISION

Point No. 1 to 3 :

       All the above points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to skip reiteration.

       From the materials on records, it reveals that complainant is a Consumer of electricity under the WBSEDCL  and he was running a fuel pump viz. M/s. Hena Fuel Pump by way of installation of that meter. The fact remains that the complainant received a bill dated 15.01.2015 amounting to Rs.3,23,999.31 Paise for consumption of electricity for the months from January, 2015 to March, 2015. On the allegation of excessive electricity bill, the complainant moved a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 9260 (W) of 2015 ( Saidul Islam Khan – vs.- WBSEDCL & Ors. ).

       By an order dated 12.05.2015 the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition with an opinion that the complainant is entitled to avail an opportunity to pay back the entire outstanding dues by 20 equal monthly instalments. The correspondences clearly indicate that the complainant has failed to comply with the order of the Hon’ble High Court in payment of energy bills in 20 instalments. In this regard,  the OPs informed the complainant about his failure to make payment of instalments on 11.06.2015 and ultimately by letter dated 26.06.2015 the electric connection was disconnected  due to failure to make payment instalments.

       Perhaps due to loophole on his part, complainant did not give reply to the questionnaires set forth by the OPs.

       The facts and  circumstances indicate that the complainant did not comply with the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 12.05.2015 in W. P. No. 9260 (W) of 2015 and has come up in this Commission with the present complaint. The complainant has failed to give reply whether he paid reconnection fees and first instalments by 07.06.2015 as per order of the Hon’ble High Court. The complainant also did not reply to the question whether without complying with the order dated 12.05.2015 in W. P. No. 9260 (W) of 2015 he has any authority to file this complaint.

       In any case, the OPs. were not deficient in rendering the  services in compliance with the order of the Hon’ble High Court. The complainant had no reason to file this complaint which appears to be frivolous and vexatious. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs which we quantify of Rs.10,000/-.

       All the above three points are decided and disposed of accordingly.

       In the result, complaint fails. It is, therefore,

ORDERED

       that the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the OP No.1 i.e. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.

       The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of the order to the complainant and the OP No.3 for information and compliance.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY]
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.