State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Balaram Basu, S/O Late Baridbaran ... vs The Station Manager, Tamluk Group ... on 14 May, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET, KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO FA/787/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 10.07.2013 in Case No. CC/52/2013 of District Purba Medinipur DF) DATE OF FILING : 24.07.2013 DATE OF ORDER:14.05.2014 APPELLANT : Sri Balaram Basu, S/o Late Baridbaran Basu, Vill. & P.O. Mirikpur, P.S. Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur RESPONDENT : The Station Manager, Tamluk Group Electric Supply, West Bengal State Electric Distribution Company Ltd., P.O. & P.S. Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag. FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Himanshusekhar Samanta, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Srijan Nayak , Ld. Advocate. Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member
This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purba Medinipur in Case No. 52/2013.
The case of the Complainant/Appellant is that he has a husking mill to lead his livelihood, for which he took industrial connection from the OP being consumer no. I 157001, and has been paying the electricity bill regularly. But, all on a sudden, on 27.10.20008, at about 2.30 pm, Shri Amiya Kumar Adak, D.E.S. (Divisional Engineer) and L.P. Tamluk (D) Circle, along with the OP inspected the premises of the husking mill in his absence and convinced that he has been consuming power by tampering meter being no. BSB 978171 and seized the said meter and disconnected the service line. Thereafter, said Amiya Kumar Adak lodged an F.I.R. against him before the O.C., Tamluk P.S., and as such Tamluk P.S. Case no. 257/08 dated 27.10.2008, u/s 135 (1) (B) (C) of the Electricity Act, 2003, started against him. The OP sent a provisional assessment bill of Rs.2,68,340/- to him on 31.10.2008 and a final assessment bill of Rs.2,33,206/- on 17.11.2008. Accordingly, he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.11.2008, Rs.20,000/- on 06.05.2009 and Rs.42,938/- on 26.02.2011 against the said theft bill. He was tried by the Special Judge, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in the said case being numbered S.C.(E) 15 (6) 09, and he was acquitted on 20.08.2011. As such, the OP is liable to compensate. Further, the OP falsely collected Rs.1,62,938/- in the theft bill, which is illegal and be returned to him. Thus, OP has made deficiency in service and he suffered mental agony for it. Accordingly, the case.
By the impugned order, the case has been dismissed being not maintainable at the admission stage.
It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of irregularity and/or illegality, warranting interference therein, in this appeal.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant surrendered and/or appeared in the Criminal Court for fear of police and also paid the money claimed in instalments, and thereafter acquitted on 20.08.2011. That the meter was tampered was not proved by any expert, and so he was acquitted for the offence u/s 135 of the Electricity Act. As he paid Rs.1.62 lakhs and odd amount, the prayer has been made before the Ld. District Forum for refund of the same. But, the case has been dismissed at the admission stage. He has referred one decision of the Delhi state Commission reported in 2010 (4) CPR 291, and also a decision of the Honble National Commission reported in 2007 (2) CPR 159 (NC).
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, however, submitted that there is, in fact, a theft of electricity by the Appellant and whether he was acquitted or not, is not so much material in this matter. The Consumer fora cannot deal in such a matter. The Appellant could have filed a Money Suit for recovery of money.
The matter related to alleged theft of electricity for the offence u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Simple acquittal being not proved beyond reasonable doubt does not give or bestow any right to the Appellant for claiming refund of the payments made by him towards the alleged illegal theft bill before the consumer fora. Such payments were deliberately made by him during the pendency of the criminal case. There is no reason as to why he did not offend the Criminal Court claiming refund of the deposited amount. He has unnecessarily knocked the door of the consumer fora without any reason or rhyme. He has no case at all for all practical purposes. The decision relied on for the Appellant do not fit in the fact of the case and are of no value in the matter. Rather, the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad, Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012, is a strict bar and no-no of such a case in the consumer fora. The finding of the Ld. District Forum in this matter is correct and wholesome, which be upheld.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, ORDERED, that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest with a token cost of Rs.1,000/- payable by the Appellant in favour of the Respondent. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER