State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : RC/09/19



DATE OF FILING : 17.02.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 19.05.2009


REVISIONAL APPLICANT



West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Through the Station Superintendent

Goaljan Group Electricity Supply

Uttarpara More,

Berhampore,

Dist. Murshidabad

Having registered office at Bidyut Bhawan

Salt Lake City

Kolkata-700 091.



OPPOSITE PARTY



Narayan Mondal,

Residing at Village & P.O. Goaljan

Dist. Murshidabad.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.Nayak, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. B.Prasad, Ld. Advocate





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Revisional Application has been preferred against the judgement and order dt. 18.12.08 passed by the Ld. Murshidabad District Forum at Berhampore in Case No. CC/28/2006 where the Ld. District Forum passed an order thereby cancelling the disputed bill for the period from September, 2005 to November, 2005 amounting to Rs. 1,03,651/- along with some other directions including payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant by the OP.

The complainant initially filed a petition of complaint before the Ld. District Forum thereby challenging the bills sent by the OP as regards electric consumption by the complainant. The OP contested the case thereby denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the petitioner consumed a total of 7986 units commencing from November, 1999 to January, 2000. But subsequently it transpires that the bill for the period from February, 2000 to June, 2005 were not verified and as such, the OP claimed much lesser amount and considering all these aspects the complaint petition should be rejected.

The Ld. District Forum while passing its judgement on the above facts disposed of the petition of complaint thereby referring the meter to CEI, Kolkata, U/S 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and also observed that the appropriate authority after hearing both sides would calculate the estimated amount of energy consumed by the complainant for the disputed period in accordance with law and in the meantime the complainant would go on depositing current bills. Subsequently there were some modifications in the said judgement and by the said modification the meter in question was referred to Sri P.K.Dey, Superintending Engineer (E), Meter Division, CTD, Central Testing Department, WBSEB, Bidhannagar, Kolkata-91, for compliance of the directions as contained in the impugned judgement. Thereafter on receipt of the report from the appropriate authority in connection with the meter in question it transpired that the electric company did not refer the actual meter to the appropriate authority and such report has got no bearing on the issue in question and thereafter the Ld. District Forum passed another judgement dt. 18.12.08 thereby passing necessary directions as already mentioned above.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such finding of the Ld. District Forum the present Revisional Application has been preferred at the instance of the electric company.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Revisional Application is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in disposing of the matter in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the very outset we find that on 18.12.08 the Ld. District Forum at Berhampore, Murshidabad, passed a fresh judgement thereby passing some directions together with awarding of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant payable by the OP. Now we all know that Revisional Application is not maintainable against a judgement. We have heard the Revisionist at length. But we are not satisfied under what circumstances and grounds the WBSEDCL has preferred the present Revisional Application which is not at all maintainable under the law. If that be the position, we are not inclined to go into the merit of the Revisional Application.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Revisional Application stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost on the ground that the same is not maintainable under the law. However, this dismissal order will not preclude the Revisionist to prefer an Appeal against the impugned judgement before the appropriate forum after observing all the formalities under the law.



MEMBER MEMBER