National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chairman/Managing Director (Wbsedcl) ... vs Amal Chandra Roy on 31 January, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 785 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 18/05/2015 in Complaint No. 134/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR (WBSEDCL) & ANR. NOW WBSEDCL, VIDYUTBHAVAN, BIDHANNAGAR, BLOCK-DJ, SECTOR-II, P.O. SECH BHAWAN, P.S. BIDHNAGAR, DISTT-NORTH 24 PGS KOLKATA-700091 2. THE STATION SUPERINTENDENT, UPERKUAI GR. ELECTRIC SUPPLY, WBSEDCL, VILL. UPERKUAI, P.O.-NERADEUL, P.S. KESHPUR, DISTT-PASCHIM MEDINIPUR, WEST BENGAL ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. AMAL CHANDRA ROY S/O. LATE BANKIM CHANDRA ROY, VILLAGE HARIMAN, VILL. UPERKUAI, P.O.-NAREDEUL, P.S. KESHPUR, DIST-PASCHIM MEDINIPUR-721260 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Appellant : In FA/483/2015 For the Appellant : in person For the Respondents : Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Advocate Mr. Dhan Raj, Advocate For the Respondent : In FA/785/2015 For the Appellants : Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Advocate Mr. Dhan Raj, Advocate For the Respondent : in person Dated : 31 Jan 2018 ORDER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. Brief facts are that the complainant, Mr. Amal Chandra Roy was staying in a joint family in a common residential house. He applied for electricity connection before the OP-2, the Station Superintendent (Uperkuai), Group Electricity Supply in the year 2000. He paid Rs.1,660/- as per the demand letter towards the security deposit, materials and service charges. Subsequently the connection was effected to his residence and new meter was installed on 17-10-2000. However, the OP-2 disconnected the service on 24-10-2000. Also removed the electricity meter without any prior intimation to the complainant. Thereafter, he contacted several officials of OPs for restoration of service, even wrote a letter to Chief Minister as well as Minister-in-charge of Power and Non-Conventional Energy. After all efforts the OP-2 asked the complainant to submit documents of ownership of land and house of the petitioner on 26-06-2012. Accordingly, complainant replied it on 11-07-2012. However, the OPs did not restore the connection. Being aggrieved by the deficiency on behalf of the OPs the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission and prayed for Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation.
2. The OPs resisted the complaint. In their written version, the OPs have admitted that for the domestic connection the complainant deposited the necessary charges on 28-03-2000 and the meter was installed with effect from 17-10-2000. The electricity was initially granted to the complainant but subsequently disconnected as it was found that complainant had played fraud upon the authorities concealing already existing connection in the said premises in the name of his brother, Rintu Roy. There was no record of disconnection or removal of meter. Though, the OPs tried for effecting service connection and meter installation on 12-08-2011, but due to objection and refusal of inhabitant therein, it was not installed. The complainant's premises already have one service connection in the name of Rintu Kumar Roy. The complainant has not produced any documents to prove his legal occupation of the premises in his favour. Therefore, the concerned officials were unable to process the connection of the meter. Accordingly, the intimation was given to the complainant vide letter dated 27-07-2012, but there was no response from the complainant. The OP also raised the objection that the cause of action in this dispute was arosed on 24-10-2000, when it was alleged by the complainant that meter was removed on that date, whereas the complaint was filed on 07-06-2013 i.e. after nearly 13 years. Thus, complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.
3. The State Commission after considering the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to provide service connection to the premises of the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order both the parties have filed the appeals before this Commission. First Appeal No.483 of 2015 filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation, whereas the First Appeal No.785 of 2015 was filed by the OP for dismissal of the complaint.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Both have made submissions as mentioned in their pleadings. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that due to lackadaisical approach of the OPs the complainant suffered for more than 13 years. The OP initially on 24-10-2000 removed the meter abruptly without giving any notice. Even after receipt of the directions from the Minister of the West Bengal Government, the OP failed to install the meter. The OP was delaying the matter unnecessarily despite making entire payment by the complainant. The learned counsel for the OP submitted that service connection was never effected to the house of complainant. The counsel further submitted that there was splitting of load in the complainant's house.
5. We gave our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties. Regarding limitation and maintainability it is clear that on 24-10-2000 for the first time the OP removed the meter in question. The consumer complaint was instituted by the complainant after lapse of 13 years from the time of disconnection. The connection was disconnected as it was found that complainant had played fraud upon the authorities by concealing the factum of an already existing connection at the premises in the name of his brother, Rintu Roy. In our view, the complainant should have filed the complaint within two years of the disconnection of his connection. We are rather surprised for more than one decade how he was staying without electricity in his house. Nothing is on record. The complainant failed to produce any cogent evidence in this regard. Therefore, in our view the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24A as it was filed after 13 years of cause of action. Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission had categorically dismissed the complaints on the ground of limitation. Our view dovetails from number of authorities like State Bank of India Vs. B. S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP), Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (I) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9307 of 2013, decided on 08-03-2013, HUDA Vs. B. K. Sood, (2006) 1 SCC 164, SBI Vs. B. S. Agricultural Industries, (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121, Kandimalla Raghavaiah Vs. National Insurance Company (2009) 7 SCC 768 and V. N. Srikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes, (2011) 1 SCC 53. It was revealed after inspection by the OP that the complainant resided in an un-partitioned double storeyed mud house in the village Harinan with his brother, Rintu Roy and Sukamal Roy. The house was in joint ownership of six brothers. Therefore, it was not partitioned. There was already an electricity connection existing in the name of Rintu Roy, brother of the complainant. Since 09-08-1974, as per the Electricity Distribution Laws, Rule 14 of WBERC Regulation Notification No.13/WBERC dated 02-04-2013, two simultaneous connections at the same premises are impermissible as it amounts to splitting of load. The complainant himself was failed to provide documents or details of his partitioned ownership of the premises for which he sought electricity connection.
6. In our view, the State Commission failed to appreciate the cause of action. The complainant filed the complaint after a decade of cause of action. Therefore, it is barred by limitation as per Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We set aside the order passed by the State Commission and, consequently, dismiss the complaint.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER