State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cesc Ltd vs Golam Jilani on 6 November, 2008
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO-390/A/2007 DATE OF FILING : 16.10.2007 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:6.11.08 APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS : 1.
CESC Ltd. CESC House, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-1.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S : :
1.
Mr. Golam Jilani.
51/G, Shamsul Huda Road, P.S. Koreya, Kolkata-17.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE :
MEMBER : Shri. A.K. Ray.
MEMBER : Shri. P.K. Chattapadhyay.
FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT :
Shri S. Nayak,Shri A. Mukherjee (Advocates) FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. :
NIL Shri P.K. Chattopadhyay,. Member, This appeal arose against judgement and order in DCDRF Kolkata Unit no 2 in case no 121 of 2006 where the Complainant Mr. Golam Jilanis case was that he took electricity to his premises during the year 1999 by paying Rs. 2,500/- and by depositing another sum of Rs. 1,400/- as security deposit and paying Rs. 11,000/- for drawing cable for this electricity .Since , his mother become seriously ill, he had to shift his family at premises no 66/1/B, Bright Street, Kolkata 17 and hence , he had requested the OP/ CESC to stop electricity to this premises at 51/G, Shamsul Huda Road , P.S. Koreya, Kolkata 700 017 on temporary basis. He had submitted a letter to the CESC on 29.3.05 accordingly. There was an arrear of Rs. 4,800/- only by his electric meter when he had requested the OP/CESC on 29.3.05 accordingly. There was an arrear of Rs.
4,800/- only by his electric meter when he had requested the OP/CESC to stop electricity. The mother of the complainant got recovered from her illness and consequently he had shifted his family to his old premises at 51/G , Shamsull Huda Road , P.S. Koreya, Kolkata- 700 017 and he is living there with his family at 51/G . Shamsull Huda Road, P.S Koreya, Kolkata 700 017 up-till-now. As and when there was no electricity to his premises he had applied to the OP/CESC for reconnection of electricity to his premises when he was advised by the OP men to make deposit of the amount of Rs. 4,000/- which was found to be due in the name of Akhtari Begum and a further security deposit of Rs. 1,600/.
2. OP CESC contested the case and filed WO stating that the complaint was not maintainable and the Ld. Forum below had no jurisdiction as the dispute between the parties was not a consumer dispute. The OP has categorically pleaded that the electricity was disconnected to the premises of the Complainant on 6.4.05 at his request. There was four other domestic meters in the same premises of the Complainant on at his request . There was four other domestic meters in the same premises in the name of Wahidur Rahman, Sakena Begum, Shahani Begum and Shah Alam respectively. The supply of electricity of Wahidur Rahman was disconnected by LCC Department of the CESE on the ground of pilferage of electricity. Outstanding dues in respect of the aforesaid premises were for Rs. 9,381-10 through adjustment of security deposit amount. According to the OP, the Complainant cannot ask for supply of electricity to his premises as and when he had earlier prayed for disconnection. The Ld. Forum after hearing both sides passed its judgement and order as under That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest but without cost. Both the parties shall bear their own cost. The Complainant is entitled to get reconnection of electricity to his premises on his making payment of the arrear dues of Rs. 4,847/- ( minus the rebate amount) together with reconnection charge as per existing rules from the OP/CESC. The Complainant shall make deposit of the arrear bill amount of Rs. 4,847/- ( minus rebate amount) to the office of the OP within a period of 15 days together with the reconnection charge after which the OP/CESC shall give reconnection of electricity to his premises within a period of 15 days from making deposit of the arrear dues and reconnection charge.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order the Ld. Forum below OP in the Forum namely CESC Ltd filed this appeal stating inter alia that the Ld. Forum below did not consider the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 and arbitrarily passed its judgement and order ignoring the claim of the Appellant towards security deposit and payment of outstanding dues. Accordingly, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below.
4. The Respondent did not enter appearance inspite of notice when the matter was heard exparte. The Appellant also filed written argument where it was stated inter alia that firstly, the amount of security deposit made on a/c of his previous connection stood adjusted against the outstanding dues of the Respondent/Complainant on his previous connection and even then an amount of 1600/- was due on that .It was also stated that another outstanding amount of Rs. 6381/-was due to be paid only after which the procedure for reconnection, on due payment of requisite fees and securities, could be taken up.
DISCUSSION (A) Admittedly the Respondent/Complainant through his application dated 29.3.05 got his power line disconnected. Admittedly again by his letter dated 6.3.06 he sought restoration of electricity from the OP/Appellant. In above view the Ld. Forums finding that the Complainant/ Respondent was a consumer in terms of provisions of the C.P. Act 1986 is perfectly in order and the contentions of the Appellant in such regard is not tenable.
(B) The provisions in respect of supply of electricity generally have been provided u/s 53 to 56, Where it is expressly provided u/s 56 that of the Electricity Act 2003. Disconnection of supply in default of payment.- (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him , the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply , are paid , but no longer :
Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under protest,-
(a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or
(b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity. .
(C) In above view of fact and law, the impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below was bad to the extent that it did not take into account the factors of outstanding dues/ further requisite payments required to be made on the application for restoration of power, as were lawful & on basis of relevant Act & rules thereunder.
(D) Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be allowed exparte without cost and the impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below is liable to be set aside being bad in law and hence, not maintainable.
Order The Appeal is allowed exparte without cost. The impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below is set aside.
Member Member