State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tarun Jyoti Banerjee & Ors. vs West Bengal State Electricity Board & ... on 12 September, 2013
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND
FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/437/2012
(Arising out
of order dated 27.06.2012 of Consumer Case No. 345/2010 of D.C.D.R.F., North 24
Pgs.)
Date of Filing : 27.07.2012 Date of Final Order : 12.09.2013
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1. Tarun Jyoti Banerjee, Consumer
No. C 12327 of Shalbagan Govt.
Coloney, P.O. Noapara, P.S.
Barasat, Dist : North 24 Parganas
2. Panchanan Banerjee, Consumer
No. B 150076, S.C. No. NCD/117 of
of Noapara
Kalibari Road,
P.O. Noapara, P.S. Barasat,
Dist : North
24 Parganas
3. S. K. Dutta, Consumer No. D 120640,
S. C. No. NDD/A 28.
4. Sukesh Chandra De, Consumer
No. D 120750, S. C. No. NDD/A 36
5. Debasish Mukherjee, Consumer
No. D 120510, S. C. No. NDD/A 44
6. Sripati Mallick, Consumer No.
D 120504, S. C. No. NDD/A 18
7. Rabindra Nath Banerjee, Consumer
No. D 120635, NDD/A 27
8. Pradip Chatterjee, Consumer No.
D 122501, S. C. No. NDD/A 694
9. Manjula Chatterjee, Consumer No.
D 120834, S. C. No. NDD/A 125
10. Pravash Chatterjee, Consumer No.
D 120860, S. C. No. NDD/A 49
11. Suniti Ranjan Sarkar, Consumer No.
D 120530, S. C. No. NDD/A 23
12. Debasish Debnath, Consumer No.
D 122779, S. C. No. NDC/A 115
13. Kanai Karmakar, Consumer No.
C 120634, S. C. No. NDD/A 136
14. Santi Pada Chatterjee, Consumer No.
D 122900, S. C. No. NSD/9461
15. Joy Ram Roy, Consumer No.
D 122737, S. C. No. NDD/A 14
16. Purna Chandra Karmakar, Consumer
No. C 120629, S. C. No. NDC/A 79
17. Kironmoyee Debi, Consumer No.
D 120 792, S. C. No. NDD/A 42
18. Lilabati Debi, Consumer No.
D 120609, S. C. No. NDD/A 24,
19. Gautam Chatterjee, Consumer No.
D 12041 S. C. No.
20. Renuka Chatterjee, Consumer No.
D 12042, S. C. No. NDD/A 12 all
residing at Sarojini Pally, P.O.
Nabapally, P. S. Barasat,
Dist: North 24 Parganas
21. Sadhan Kumar Mukherjee, Consumer
No. A 120517, S. C. No. NBD/B 66
22. Suranjan Kar, Consumer No.
A070723, S. C. No. NED/C 241/1 both of
near Jogendra Nath Balika Vidyalaya,
P.O. Nabapally, P.S. Barasat,
Dist: North 24 Parganas
The appellant No. 2 to 22 being represented
by their constituted attorney the appellant
No. 1
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
1. West
Bengal State
Electricity Board
2. West
Bengal State
Electricity
Distribution Company Limited
having its office at Vidyut Bhavan,
Bidhannagar, Block-DJ, Sector-II,
Kolkata 700 091.
3. Station Manager, Noapara Group
Electricity/Supply having its office at
P.O. Noapara, P.S. Barasat,
Dist: North 24 Parganas.
BEFORE : MEMBER : Sri S. Coari.
MEMBER : Sri D. Bhattacharya.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. Dipankar Banerjee,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Mr. Srijan Nayak,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
S. COARI, MEMBER.
The present appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dated 27.06.2012 passed by Ld. District Forum, North 24 Pgs. in CC Case No. 345/(S)/2010 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the petition of complaint on contest without cost.
The case of the Complainants Appellants before the Ld. District Forum in brief, was that the Complainants in the capacity of consumer under the O.P. No. 1 Electric Company. Now, on the strength of Regulation commencing from the year 2005 along with on the strength of Regulation No. 11 of West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission the Electric Company demanded enhanced security deposit from the Complainants. The Complainants challenged the authority of the Electric Company to charge the enhanced security deposit from the old existing consumers and as the Electric Company refused to accommodate the Complainants the petition of complaint was filed for proper redressal.
The Electric Company contested the case by filing Written Version thereby denying and disputing all the allegations mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia, that the Electric Company was well within its right to charge payment of security deposit which was not taken in respect of old consumers and that the Electric Company was entitled to charge the balance amount of security deposit as per Section 47(2) and Clause 4 of the Regulation 23/WBERC dated 18.10.2005. In the absence of any deficiency at the instance of the Electric Company petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the Electric Company was well within its permissible limit to demanded the security deposit in terms of the Regulation and as there was no deficiency at the instance of the Electric Company the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed and accordingly, disposed of the petition of complaint.
The only moot question that revolves round in the present appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Complainants Appellants to the effect that Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs and as such, the impugned judgement is not at all sustainable under the law. According to Ld. Advocate for the Appellants that the Electric Company is demanding enhanced security deposit without any rhyme and reason.
While elaborating on this point the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted before us that admittedly the Complainants Appellants are consumers and they are enjoying electric facilities since long and have already deposited the security deposit as per the then existing rules and regulations. Now, the Electric Company is demanding enhanced security deposit in terms of the regulation which has been subsequently framed. According to Ld. Advocate such demand on the part of the Electric Company is unjustified and certainly tantamounted to unfair trade practice. But unfortunately the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate this aspect of this case and under some mistaken belief has passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submission so put forward on behalf of the Appellants Complainants and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and found that in this case the Complainants Appellants have come forward with a case to the effect that the Complainants are enjoying the electric facility from the Electric Company for some time passed and have already paid security deposit.
But after the enactment of the Regulation in the year 2003 the Electric Company is demanding further security deposit from the Complainants which is not at all permissible under the law and hence, the petition of complaint.
The Electric Company, on the other hand, has come forward with a case to the effect that the enhancement of the security deposit has been effected on the basis of Section 47(2) and Clause 4 of Regulation 23/WBERC dated 18.10.2005 and in such demand there cannot be any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and as such, the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has appreciated the pros and cons and also legal proposition involved in the present case. When the Regulation entitles the Electric Company to demand more security deposit from the existing consumers like the Complainants we do not find that in demanding the balance security amount there was any unfair trade practice and/or deficiency in service at the instance of the Electric Company.
Having considered the present appeal in the light of above discussion we find no merit in the present appeal and Ld. District Forum having rightly dismissed the petition of complaint we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Ld. District Forum, which, in our opinion, should be confirmed.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, ordered that the appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement stands confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER