State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cesc Ltd. & Others vs Qurisha Ahmed on 15 June, 2009
D R A F T State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/114 DATE OF FILING : 13.03.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 15.06.2009 APPELLANTS 1. CESC Limited CESC House Chowringhee Square Kolkata-700 069. 2. Deputy Manager Loss Control Cell CESC Limited Taratola Road Kolkata. 3. Assessing Officer Loss Control Cell CESC Limited Taratola Road Kolkata. RESPONDENTS Qurisha Ahmed B/3/H/10, Jhautola Lane Kolkata-700 017. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. A.K.RAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.Nayak, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. D.Halder, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement dt. 1.10.08 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C.No. 187 of 2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint with a direction for restoration of electric line to the petitioner subject to payment of 50% of the disputed amount along with a direction for sending the meter in question to the Head of the Department of Metrological Section at Jadavpur University for testing of the meter and report to the CESC Ltd. with an intimation to the petitioner.
The case of the complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant was a bonafide consumer under CESC Ltd., i.e the Appellant. The complainant paid electric consumption bill up-to-date and there were no dues to the electric company from the complainant.
The OP illegally disconnected the electric line without serving any notice on the allegation that the complainant had committed theft in respect of consumption of electrical energy. The complainant seriously challenged the high-handed action on the part of the Ops, but without any avail. Hence, the petition of complaint was filed before the Forum below.
The Ops contested the petition of complaint by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint with a prayer to dismiss the petition of complaint.
The Ld. Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint observed that there is no authentic document showing bonafide assessment of consumption of electrical energy at the instance of the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant produced all the relevant and connected documents showing payment of electricity consumption bills regularly and accordingly disposed of the petition of complaint in the manner as already mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellants/CESC Ltd. that once the Appellant was able to substantiate the case of theft of electrical energy at the instance of the complainant together with lodging of FIR and institution of a specific case by the police authority against the complainant, there was no scope on the part of the Ld. District Forum to entertain the petition of complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant and disposed of the same with a direction to pay 50% of the disputed amount together with sending the meter in question to the Metrological Department of Jadavpur University for testing and report.
According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, the Electricity Act does not provide any relief under the Consumer Protection Act when there is a specific allegation of theft of electrical energy by a consumer. It is also submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the actual state of affairs and the legal position involved in the present dispute and as such, has arrived at an unjust and improper decision which is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant has put up a story to the effect that the complainant being a bonafide consumer was unnecessarily harassed by the Appellants/Electric Company by disconnecting the electric line without notice and that too with a wild allegation of theft of electrical energy at the instance of the complainant. The Appellants/Ops, on the other hand, contested the suit thereby denying all the material allegations put forward by the complainant with a prayer for dismissal of petition of complaint. Now, from the materials on record we find that the complainant/Respondent did produce all the relevant and connected papers in support of Respondents claim that he is a bonafide consumer under the Appellants/Electric Company. On the other hand, from the impugned judgement we find that the Ld. District Forum has observed that the Appellants could not produce any authentic document in support of assessment of consumption of electrical energy at the instance of the complainant which, according to the Appellants, was the result of theft of electrical energy. We have duly gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has appreciated the cases of respective parties and has arrived at a just and proper decision. When admittedly the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and there is no denial that the complainant is a Consumer under the Appellant Company, we think that even though there exist some controversies between the parties it was just and proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to order for restoration of electric line upon the Respondents paying 50% of the disputed amount along with a direction of sending the meter in question to the University in question for testing and report.
Considering the matter in the light of above observation we find no merit in the present Appeal as the impugned order has kept the real controversy open and the Appellant will be at liberty to adjudge the matter upon receipt of the report from the concerned university.
In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
The impugned judgement stands affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER (SC) (AKR)