State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Sanjib Bhattacharya vs The Assistant Engineer And Station ... on 7 April, 2010
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. : CC/08/58 DATE OF FILING : 15.10.2008 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 07.04.2010 COMPLAINANT Mr. Sanjib Bhattacharya S/o Late Debabrata Bhattacharya F-7/1, Labony Estate, Salt Lake, P.S. Bidhannagar North Kolkata-700 064 West Bengal And also of DC-22, Salt Lake, Sector-1 P.S. Bidhannagar North Kolkata-700 064 West Bengal. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Assistant Engineer and Station Manager Bidhannagar Electric Supply Sub-Division-1 WBSEDCL (Previous WBSEB) AA-27, Salt Lake City, Sector-I P.S. North Bidhannagar Kolkata-700 064 West Bengal. 2. S.E. & Divisional Manager WBSEDCL (Previous WBSEB) CF-353, Salt Lake City, Sector-I P.S. North Bidhannagar Kolkata-700 064 West Bengal. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. Utpal Kr. Basu, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. S.Nayak, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR.
P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER This complaint was filed by Shri Sanjib Bhattacharya under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended, against the Ops namely (1) Assistant Manager, Bidhannagar Electric Supply, Sub-Division-I, WBSEDCL and (2) S.E. & Divisional Manager, WBSEDCL, alleging deficiency of service on their part in regard to electricity consumption bills not having been sent to proper name and address and then reconnection post disconnection seeking reconnection of power line to his premises at DC-22, Salt Lake City, with compensation for Rs. 98,20,000/- and other relief(s) as deemed fit and proper.
The complainants case, in short, was that he was living at Flat F-7/1, Labony Estate, Salt Lake, and had constructed a building at DC-22 for use for commercial purpose, when he had service connection no. 23408 under Consumer No. A 021090 and Meter No. GS 322620.
However, inspite of specific instructions his consumption bills were not sent to his living address at Labony Estate and even the name was wrongly written as Chakraborty instead of Bhattacharya. Stating that in the meantime two other persons namely Smt. Soma Pal and Sri Manabendra Chatterjee occupied portions of the said premises with illegal power connections having been installed and the complainants wife undergoing serious medical ailments, he was in deep distress and wrote to Ops on 13.12.06 and had no response. Subsequently, the complainant received up-to-date bills in early 2007 and duly paid so with reconnection charges as well, but no reconnection was made inspite of the complainant being a senior citizen and handicapped person. The complainant then wrote to Ops alleging deficiency of service on reconnection and claimed Rs. 50.00 lakhs in damages and the same was not responded. Later the Ops allegedly put up a false story implicating the complainant when it was stated that the Ops had no access to the service connection when they went for providing reconnection and thus the service line remained disconnected since 31.10.06. The complainant meanwhile received a letter dt. 13.9.08/16.09.08 from the Ops when it was stated inter alia that the given service connection could not be restored as per regulation and existing meter and other contraptions were sought to be removed. Thus detailing the disconnection and failure towards reconnection and consequential suffering and loss the complainant sought direction on reconnection at the pre-existing supply at DC-22, Salt lake, with compensation and cost.
The Ops entered appearance and contended inter alia that the complaint case was not maintainable as it is well decided that any case can be filed against a company but the officers of the company cannot be sued for the laches of the company. Claiming that no interim order could be passed when maintainability was under challenge the Ops pointed out to the vexatious nature of the claim and the difficulty in adjudication of the complaint under Consumer Protection Act which inter alia involved issues relating to disconnection/fresh connection and misappropriation. Accordingly, the Ops sought dismissal of the complaint case being not maintainable.
By Order No. 6 dt. 18.2.09 disposing Misc. Application under number 13/09 this Commission decided that the maintainability point raised by the Ops would be taken up with the final hearing. Written Version on part of the Ops was filed on 27.3.09. Three other Misc. Applications were disposed of on 5.5.09 rejecting Complainants prayer for incorporating certain facts/developments in the complaint, rejecting Complainants prayer for direction for shifting of Feeder Boxes supposedly affecting ingress/egress to the premises and rejecting complainants prayer for issue of order restraining the Ops and their men/agents from removing subject electric meter. Respective evidence, questionnaire thereto and replies thereof was filed and received and then the complainant filed an application for supply of electricity before Durga Puja on reasonable terms and conditions. The same was heard on 9.10.09 and order passed on 27.10.09 allowing temporary connection subject to application and requisites. Another application by the complainant dt. 31.12.09 was disposed of by our Order dt. 5.01.10 rejecting steps U/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
After evidence of contending parties were completed the matter was heard from both sides with filing of WNA.
In his WNA the complainant relied upon (1) NCDRC R.P.No. 371-373 dt. 10.4.08, (2) (2003) 4 SCC 739, (3) (2003) 8 SCC 567, (4) 2001 (3) ALD 313, (5) 2006(1) 610 (SC), (6) (1994) 1 SCC 243, (7) AIR 1994 SC 853 (DB), (8) SC judgement in Nizam Trust of Medical Science Vs. Prasantha S Dhananka & Others, (9) NCDRC judgement in Chandrakant Mahadev Kadan Vs. Assistant Engineer, MSEB Atpadi & Others. In its WNA the Ops placed citations as under (1) Clause 4.6.1 of WBERC Regulation, (2) SC Re General Manager, Telecom, (3) SC Case No. 51/08, (4) SC Case No. 328/A/09, (5) SC Case No. SC/69/09, (6) WP 487(W) of 2008 High Court, Calcutta, (7) WP 602 of 2009 High Court, Calcutta.
DISCUSSION A. The Complainant, a senior citizen and qualified and practising Chartered Accountant, spent considerable time abroad and after sustaining a severe road accident he became permanently disabled and lost his wife later. The complaint contained several ingredients of deficiency of service, which are as under -
a) Inaccurate and improper electricity consumption bills not sent to his designated address and subsequent disconnection of power line with no reconnection made even when electricity consumption bills though full of errors were fully paid along with reconnection charges.
b) Installation of illegal and forcible electric connection with meter at the premises of the complainant (DC-22, Salt lake) in the name of one Manabendra Chatterjee by the Ops, in connivance with unholy associates, breaking open electric meter room of the complainant, followed by subsequent inaction on part of Ops, after the fact was brought to their notice.
c) Illegal dispossession of one electric connection and meter given to one Smt. Soma Pal, so given without consent of the complainant.
d) Reconnection not being given to the complainant even after full payment of all previous consumption bills and reconnection charges, the complainant sent demand notice dt. 24.3.07 to the Ops seeking Rs. 50.00 lakhs for compensation for their deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, but to no effect.
e) Subsequently on an application of the complainant dt. 25.7.08 seeking information on Easy Power Prepayment Metering System the complainant received one communication dt. 2.8.08 wherein the Ops informed that they had gone to the Complainants premises on 26.2.07 and 27.2.07 but could not effect reconnection as the location of service mains was locked.
The said letter also conveyed that given SC Connection No. 23408, Consumer No. A 02109 lying disconnected since 31.10.06 was deemed to have been terminated in terms of regulation 36 under Section 4.6.1. of WBERC. In such connection, the complainant pointed out that had the location of service mains was really under lock and key, how was it possible on part of the Ops to visit regularly and record the meter reading of Sri Manabendra Chatterjee, whose meter was located at the same place. The complainant also pointed out to OPs communication dt. 13.9.08/16.9.08 where the Ops threatened that new application for three phase line would be rejected within 30 days. The complainant also referred to a communication of Ops dt. 15.11.08 wherein the Ops threatened to remove the subject electric meter on 1.11.08 between 11.30 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. B. Of the foregoing allegations (b) & (c) as above pertaining to illegal dispossession/forceful occupation/criminal intimidation and tenancy terms and/or violation thereof, are beyond the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended, and hence, beyond adjudication in this Commission. As for other components of allegations namely (a), (d) & (e), we intend to go through the same with consideration of the fact that the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation designed to help reach substantial relief for grievances in everyday existence of the common man.
On the issue that the complainant was no longer a Consumer before Ops and the agreement executed between the Ops and the complainant on power supply was deemed to have been terminated in the light of provisions 4.6.1 of the Regulation No. 36 of WBERC, as the given disconnection continued beyond six months, i.e. from 31.10.06, we can only state that the complaint was filed before this Commission U/S 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with cause of action being within time and thus, the complaint is very well maintainable before us. The allegations at (a), (d) & (e) when clubbed boils down to a disconnection of electricity for non-payment of consumption dues. It was a fact that the billing address given by the complainant was different from the site and premises where the given electricity disconnection and subsequent application for reconnection, after payment of all dues including reconnection charges, was not acceded to after failed efforts on account of the location supposedly remaining under lock and key.
It was also a fact that the complainant did not receive the consumption bills in time in his billing address and correct name, for which the Ops have no proper explanation. But it was also a duty on part of the complainant to collect his consumption bills when not received in right time and/or periodicity as has been provided under rules. In that view the disconnection by the Ops cannot be deemed to be an act deficient in service.
C. Coming over to the allegation of not effecting reconnection of power line subsequent to full payment of dues including reconnection charges, there appears to be conflicting versions when the Ops maintain that they were to the site on different dates namely 26.2.07 and 27.2.07, but the location being under lock and key, reconnection could not be effected. The complainant claimed that firstly he was not intimated so a priori and secondly this was not simply possible. There being no specific provision of prior intimation, the truth eludes as to what precisely occurred. But the fact remained that had the complainant been a resident at the site where reconnection was to be effected, the episode might not have occurred.
Therefore, on this count also we are unable to hold that the Ops were in any way deficient in service or had perpetrated negligence in any manner on the complainant.
D. However, later developments of mutual acrimony, bitter correspondence and blamegame could have been best avoided with resolution of the fundamental issue of reconnection had the service provider namely the Ops, could have taken a little more understanding role on the plight of the complainant, though no doubt the complainant by his claim of huge amount of compensation and other tersely worded letters complicated the situation. In this position, we would take a view considering the physical disability and age of the complainant including his education, social status and avocation and hold that the suffering of the complainant can best be mitigated through the office of the Grievance Redressal Machinery as provided under the provisions of Electricity Act and WBERC Regulations therefor so that the issue of resumption of power supply at the premises of the complainant at DC-22, Salt Lake, can be addressed and resolved to satisfaction of both parties in a mode and manner as may be decided by such authority and in such regard, we would expect that the Ops would do their best to help the complainant, within the shortest possible time-frame.
E. As for Ops contentions/suggestions of dishonest practices/abstraction/tampering etc. on the given power line, we do not believe such assertions and would rely, in such regard, on citation in II (2009) CPJ 397 (NC), where it was inter alia held -
C. P. Act 1986 Section 21(b) Electricity Theft Test Report reg tampering of M&T Seals not produced on record Inspection carried out in absence of complainant or independent person Complainant guilty of theft of energy not proved.
O R D E R Except the allegation of sending consumption of electricity bills to wrongful address and incorrect name for a period ultimately resulting in disconnection of power supply, all other allegations in the complaint as to deficiency of service and/or negligence on the Ops have not been proved. In the light of sending of bills at wrong address and consequential real sufferings of the complainant for being without electricity for protracted period and resultant distress and financial loss the Ops are directed to refer the grievances of the complainant relating to billing mistakes/errors/omissions and his case of resumption of power supply at the premises at DC-22, Salt Lake, Sector-I, to the Grievance Redressal Machinery, as set up under law, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order and ensure resolution of the issues by their help and assistance. The petition of complaint is thus allowed in part on contest without cost.
MEMBER MEMBER