State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Wbsedcl & Ors. vs Naresh Chandra Dutta on 28 November, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street,
Kolkata - 700087
Revision Petition No.
RP/47/2013
(Arisen out of Order
Dated 29/11/2012 in Case No. CC/448/2012 of District North 24 Parganas
DF, Barasat)
1.
WBSEDCL
Vidyut
Bhaban, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 91.
2.
Divisional Engineer, WBSEDCL
Barasat
Sub-Division, P.O. & P.S. - Barasat, Dist. North 24 Pgs., Sr.
Station Superintendent.
3.
Gobardanga Group Electricity Supply
B.T.
College Road, Gobardanga, P.S. Habra, Dist. North 24 Pgs.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1.
Naresh Chandra Dutta
S/o
Late Barindra Nath Dutta, Raj Ballavpur, Gobardanga, P.S. Habra, Dist.
North 24 Pgs.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE
MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER
For
the Petitioner:
Mr.
S. Nayak Mr. A. Mukhopadhyay Mr. S. Chatterjee, Advocate
For
the Respondent:
Mr.
Tarun Jyoti Banerjee., Advocate
ORDER
Date:
28-11-2014 Sri Debasis Bhattacharya This revision is directed against the interim order dt. 29-11-2012 in Case No. 448/2012, passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas, whereby the OPs have been directed to give the relief as prayed for by the Complainant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OPs thereof has preferred this appeal.
In short, case of the Complainant is that he is a bona fide consumer under the OPs, having service Connection No. MLP/780 and Consumer ID No. 154044026. The Complainant has been quite regular in the matter of payment of electricity bills.
He made a written complainant before the OP No. 2 in the month of August 2010 regarding a disputed bill and also about problem with the meter, but to no avail. Despite such indifference on the part of the OP No. 2, the Complainant continued payment of bills under proper receipt. The Complainant met several officials of the OPs to air his grievance and even submitted a fresh application to the Assistant Engineer of the OP No. 2 on 23-04-2011. On the intervention of said office, though the old meter bearing no. BS 100673 was replaced with a new one bearing no. T242727, there was no improvement. The higher officials of the OP even assured the Complainant to solve the problem of inflated bills at the earliest. Meanwhile, when the Complainant went to the office of the OP No. 2 to make payment of energy bill dated 02-11-2012 for the consumption period from November, 2012 to January, 2013, the officials refused to receive the amount towards tariff and subsequently some officials from the office of the OP visited his residence on 05-11-2012 and without holding any enquiry, disconnected the service connection on the charge of theft of electricity without serving any notice which is mandatory under the provisions as laid down in Sec. 135 to 140 of the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 and 135 (1A) and Clause No. 5.2.1 of the WBERCS Regulations, 2004 and saddled him with a provisional bill of Rs. 3,58,787,02 and thereafter, the OP demanded an amount of Rs.
4,18,517/- from him for the billing month of November, 2012 and asked him to make immediate payment of the same.
So, the case.
In this revision, it has been stated by the OPs that it being a theft case, the instant case cannot be adjudicated by a District Forum. That apart, the case is bad in law as it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. Last but not the least, during pendency of a case, without hearing the other side, the Ld. District Forum should not have granted temporary relief to the Complainant on the very first day of adjudicating the matter, by which the whole relief of the complaint case has been given/doled out in blanket form by the said Ld. District Forum illogically and not applying any judicial mind, conduct and consideration.
Point for consideration in this revision is whether there is any factual/legal infirmity in the impugned order or not.
Decision with reasons At the very outset it is submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that a Consumer Forum has got no authority to adjudicate a theft case since dispute related to a theft case does not construe any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the service provider, i.e., the Revisionist in this case. Moreover, the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the disputed amount was far above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Forum and above all, by giving such relief in haste behind the back of the Revisionist, the Ld. District Forum caused grave prejudice to them for which, the impugned order should be set aside.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent that Ld. District Forum merely provided a stop gap relief to the Complainant considering their unbearable condition in absence of electricity, which is an essential service and also directed to the OP Electricity Board to collect monthly tariff as per meter reading of the temporary meter and the Ld. District Forum never decided the matter relating to theft of electricity. Moreover, the disputed bill was for a sum of Rs. 3,58,787.02 only and not Rs. 3,58,78,702/- as claimed by the OP electricity board.
Therefore, the instant case is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum.
The instant order being passed in order to provide temporary relief to the Complainant on humanitarian ground, the same should be sustained.
Admittedly, the dispute revolves around alleged theft of electricity by the Complainant. The Honble Apex Court vide its order dated 01-07-2013 in the matter of UP Power Corporation Ltd & Ors v/s Anis Ahmad in Civil Appeal Nos. 5467 to 5475 of 2012 has debarred the Consumer Fora from adjudicating any matter related to theft of electricity. It is not the case of the Complainant that there was any deficiency in service in the matter of providing electricity to the Complainant or the OPs indulged in any kind of unfair or restrictive trade practice, or that the charge is in excess of the price declared or fixed by law, which form the basic ingredient of a consumer dispute.
So, in the light of said decision of the Honble Court and also considering the fact that the basic ingredients of a consumer dispute is missing in the instant case, in our considered opinion, it would be just and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. District Forum which is not maintainable at all and without jurisdiction.
As a result, the instant revision is allowed.
Hence, ORDERED that the revision be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondent, but without any order as to cost. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
JAGANNATH BAG DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA MEMBER MEMBER