State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/15



DATE OF FILING : 14.01.09 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 24.04.09
APPELLANTS

Sri Tushar Kanti Sarkar

Vill. & P.O. Maslandpur

Dist. 24 Parganas (North).



RESPONDENTS

1. C/E (D) (W.B.S.E.B.)

Bidyut Bhavan

Bidhannagar

Kolkata-700 091.

2. Chairman & Managing Director (W.B.S.E.D.C.L.)

Bidyut Bhavan

Bidhannagar

Kolkata-700 091.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : In person.

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





: O R D E R :


MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER

This Appeal is heard analogously with Appeal No. FA/09/102, the latter being cross-Appeal, arising out of the same judgement and order dt. 29.12.2008 in D.F. Case No. 195/2007 in DCDRF, North 24 Parganas at Barasat, where the complainant Sri Tushar Kanti Sarkar’s case was that he had one ice-cream factory and had two sets of electric connections namely, Industrial and Commercial at a location taken in tenancy by him. In respect of Connection No. SC/MLP/523/ind disconnection notice was served on 27.10.97 and this was effected on 23.12.97, on allegation of non-payment of huge amount of arrear energy bills. In respect of another connection namely, SC/MLP/524/com, this was disconnected in December’98 again against non-payment of supposed prior period bills. On prayer made by the complainant he was allowed by the Ops to make payment of outstanding dues in installments, of which the first installment was paid by him, but reconnection was not effected as the landlord offered résistance alleging that the tenancy term had expired. Accordingly, the complaint case for restoration of the power connection and adequate compensation for loss suffered by the complainant in his business owing to given disconnection and failure in effecting reconnection.

This position was contested by the Ops by filing of written version when it was stated inter alia that the complaint was not tenable as the same was filed against WBSEB when WBSEDCL was already carved out from the previous organization so named and also that the complaint was time-barred. Arguing further that a very large amount continued to remain outstanding and that disconnection followed only after due service of notice, it was contended that the Ops had no ingredient of deficiency of service on the complainant. As for landlord’s resistance towards restoration of one power line, the Ops contended that it was for the complainant to provide right of way as per provisions of law and the same having not been provided, the Ops were under no obligation to provide reconnection on the said power line.

The matter was heard from respective sides when the Ld. Forum below ordered as under :-

“That the complaint brought by the complainant Sri Tushar Kanti Sarkar on 03.10.07 under Section 12, C.P.Act is allowed on contest with cost giving directions mentioned hereinafter.

The Ops shall effect reconnection of the complainant’s service connection No. MLP/523/Ind promptly provided other conditions for obtaining the supply of electricity to the concerned premises remain satisfied, if necessary, by seeking assistance of police.

The Ops shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation and a further sum of Rs. 500/- as cost of this proceeding within one month from the service of copy of this award upon them.”



Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order in the Ld. Forum below the complainant in the Forum namely, Sri Tushar Kanti Sarkar, filed Appeal under number FA/09/15 when it was stated inter alia that the impugned judgement and order passed by the Forum below is not in consonance with law and the amount of compensation and cost was not in proportion to the loss suffered by the Appellant/Complainant. Stating that the complainant was also entitled to an amount of refund on the sum already paid to the Respondents/Ops, the Appellant prayed for appropriate orders.

A cross-Appeal was also filed in FA/09/102 arising out of the same judgement and order in the identical complaint case where the Appellant namely, WBSEDCL, contended inter alia that the original complaint itself was not maintainable because the complainant was not a Consumer when he had the industrial and commercial connections for commercial purpose duly established and also that the complainant did not implead the landlord and that the complaint suffered from limitation since disconnection was effected on 23.12.97 when the complaint was filed in the year 2007, i.e. after about 10 years.

The matter was heard from respective sides.


DISCUSSION

A. On the issue of limitation in filing the complaint or in allowing the complaint case against WBSEB when WBSEDCL was already carved out, the Respondent/Ops did not come with any Revision Application on given order of the Ld. Forum below and, therefore, we are not inclined to accept this position of the Appellant in Case No. FA/09/102 or Respondent in FA/09/15.

B. Referring to the issue on accrual of outstanding on both industrial and commercial connections of the complainant in the Forum below towards prior period consumption, we find no irregularity whatsoever or on disconnection of power line(s), the said outstanding dues not being cleared and, therefore, in terms of provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 as amended in 2007 read with WBERC Regulations thereunder we find no impropriety whatsoever on the said disconnections which were effected after due notice though notice was at no point of time compulsory.

C. Referring to allegations of non-payment by the Complainant/Appellant in Case No. FA/09/15 towards prior period consumption duly noted and conveyed and subsequent disconnection thereto, we do not find any impropriety either on the part of WBSEDCL where in terms of Electricity Act, 2003 amended in 2007 read with WBERC Regulations thereunder, the disconnections followed non-payment of outstanding dues. As for reconnection on payment of given installments of the outstanding, the Appellant in Case No. FA/09/15 and the Respondent in Case No. FA/09/102 having not provided right of way, under provisions of law, he cannot make a complaint of deficiency of service on the part of the service provider namely WBSEDCL.

D. In above view of fact and law, the impugned judgement dt. 29.12.08 in Complaint Case No. 195/2007 is liable to be modified. However, the inbuilt provisions being supportive in favour of consumers of electricity, wherever there may be grievances, we direct the Respondents in FA/09/15 and Appellant in FA/09/102 to send the claim for prior period consumption in respect of both the industrial and the commercial connections to Grievance Redressal Authority as constituted under the law towards resolution, subject to specific steps by Sri Tushar Kanti Sarkar, the complainant, and also on condition that pre-requisites thereto are properly and adequately adhered to.



The Appeal No. FA/09/15 is dismissed on contest without cost. The Respondent is, however, directed to refer the said disputed consumption bill to the Grievance Redressal Authority as constituted under the law, under due intimation to the Appellant, subject to his performance of prerequisites and conditions, as are provided.



MEMBER MEMBER