State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
District Engineer, Cesc Ltd. vs Smt. Rita Devi Alias Reeta Devi on 14 July, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Revision Petition No. RP/22/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/12/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/352/2014 of District Howrah) 1. District Engineer, CESC Ltd. Howrah Regional Office, 433/1, G.T. Road(North), Howrah - 711 101. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Rita Devi alias Reeta Devi W/o Sri Bimlesh Chowdhury, 22, Nahendra Nath Roy Lane, P.S. & Dist. - Howrah -711 101. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Petitioner: Mr. Srijan Nayek Ms. Arpita Saha , Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Binoy Kumar Ghorai., Advocate Dated : 14 Jul 2017 Final Order / Judgement Order no. 9 date: 14-07-2017 Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Challenge under this Revision is the Order dated 24-12-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in C.C. No. 352/2014.
By such Revision, it is stated by the Revisionist that there remains a dispute in between the parties over non-payment of claim amount pertaining to theft of electricity by the husband of the Respondent/Complainant and according to the Revisionist, dispute of this nature cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Fora in the wake of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmed as reported in III (2013) CPJ L SC. In such circumstances, a maintainability petition was moved before the Ld. District Forum. However, by its impugned order, the Ld. District forum rejected the said maintainability petition. Hence, this Revision.
Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record.
It appears that the dispute revolves over non-payment of a sum of Rs. 60,805/- that the Revisionist assessed on account of alleged theft of electricity by the husband of the Respondent/Complainant in respect of the service connection stand in the name of the husband of the Respondent/Complainant at Premises No. 15/A, Radha Madhab Ghosh Lane, Howrah. As a punitive measure, the Revisionist sought to disconnect service connection provided to the Respondent/Complainant at Premises No. 22, Mahendra Nath Roy Lane, Howrah till the slate was cleaned by the husband of the Respondent/Complainant.
In this regard, it is claimed by the Revisionist that it is empowered to take such drastic measure in terms of Article 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of the WBERC Regulations. However, on a reference to the Notification no. 58/WBERC dated 03-09-2013, we find that the said articles dealt with a completely different issue. For better illustration, relevant provisions of the said articles are appended below:
"3.4 STU and Dedicated Transmission Line:
3.4.1 The entity, declared under section 39 of the Act as STU, is not required to apply separately for grant of a licence for any expansion of its utility except taking of approval against investment plan as specified in Tariff Regulations. Provided if such entity ceased to be STU, in such an event, it shall require to apply for licence within 30 days from ceasation of such STU status.
3.4.2 For the purpose of the instant Regulations, a dedicated transmission line will be treated as an asset of the owner and no licence will be required provided that no electricity shall be transmitted through such asset except for which such asset has been built up with the prior approval of the Commission or as per direction by the Commission under section 23 of the Act. However, such dedicated transmission line shall not be available for open access unless such dedicated transmission line is built as a part of condition of any specific open access purpose with the approval of the Commission".
It seems to us that the aforesaid provisions do not aid the cause of the Revisionist in any manner.
In effect, no such provision under the Electricity Act and/or WBERC Regulations is forthcoming before us wherefrom it can be ascertained that the said Act/Regulations empowers the distribution licensee to disconnect the service connection of a consumer provided to a different location on account of non-clearance of outstanding in respect of a service connection stand in the name of the spouse of the concerned consumer which is situated at another location.
Moreover, it is also noteworthy here that the Respondent/Complainant has claimed that her husband left the previous address, where he used to live as a tenant, in the month of May, 2009 itself whereas the disputed bill pertained to the month of December, 2013. Notwithstanding the Revisionist, denying receipt of any letter, claimed to have been submitted by the husband of the Respondent/Complainant on 19-08-2009 under the caption, 'Surrender of meter", dubbed the purported office seal on the body of the said letter as a spurious one, it is rightly held by the Ld. District Forum that disputes in this regard can only be settled at the time of final hearing after both sides file tangible proof in support of their respective claims/counter-claims.
We do appreciate the right of the Revisionist to realize its legitimate dues from defaulting consumers. However, that has to be done within the confinement of statutory provisions. A service provider cannot be allowed to become a law unto itself.
Finally, it is true that in view of the afore-mentioned authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate disputes involving theft of electricity. However, it is worth noting here that in respect of the service connections provided to the Respondent/Complainant at Premises No. 22, Mahendra Nath Roy Lane, P.O. & Dist. Howrah there is no such allegation. On the other hand, in view of our observation that the Revisionist has miserably failed to show any provision in the Electricity Act whereof Revisionist has been given due authority to disconnect the service connection of a consumer provided at a different location on account of non-payment of claim amount in respect of the service connection stand in the name of his/her spouse which is situated at another location, in our considered view, by rejecting the Ld. District Forum committed no jurisdiction error.
In view of this, we see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order.
The Revision, accordingly, stands dismissed.
Hence, O R D E R E D that RP/22/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. District Forum together with the LCR. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 18-08-2017. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER