MEMBER CESC LTD Vs. NANDINI HALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question involved in this appeal is whether CESC Ltd. is entitled to withhold restoration of the supply of electricity to a consumer only because there was difficulty in supplying electricity through D.C. supply mode.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the complainant is a consumer of electricity at her premises No.39/18A, Gopal Nagar Road, P.S.Alipore, Kolkata -700 027 through a D.C. meter No.0411095 under consumer No. 15041074003. It is also not in dispute that suddenly on 17.5.2006 the supply of electricity to the aforesaid premises of the complainant was withheld and such supply was not restored thereafter in spite of intimation to the concerned authorities of CESC Ltd. Most surprisingly the OP/CESC Ltd., raised a bill for Rs. 1,490 for consumption of electricity for the month of July, 2006 which was paid by the complainant even though the supply of electricity was not restored for that month. A further bill was raised for the month of November, 2006 without restoring supply of electricity in the premises of the complainant. In these circumstances the complainant was forced to initiate a proceeding being CDF Case No. 324/2006 against CESC Ltd. before the concerned District Consumer Redressal Forum at Kolkata Unit -I. The complainant further wrote a letter dated 3.1.2007 to the Ombudsman namely West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC) alleging such deficiency of services by the OP/CESC Ltd. Fortunately the complainant through the intervention of the said Ombudsman got the supply of electricity restored by the CESC Ltd. to the premises of the complainant, while it was admitted that the aforesaid two bills for the months of July and November, 2006 were raised inadvertently during which the supply stood interrupted. The anomalies in the bills so far as raised by the CESC Ltd. was thus rectified and the power supply restored. The above complaint case was accordingly withdrawn by the complainant. Same thing happened again in the year 2007 and the electric supply was ultimately restored on 16.8.2007. Thereafter electric supply was interrupted again on 27.10.2008 for which a further complaint was lodged by the complainant under docket No.0213612. In spite of such complaint the supply of electricity was not restored, on the plea that restoration of supply of electricity through D.C.meter was not possible. Accordingly the above complaint case was filed by the complainant which has been disposed of by the impugned judgment and order by directing the OP/CESC Ltd. to restore supply lines in question within 45 days from the date of communication of the said order and further by awarding a sum of Rs.10,000 by way of compensation and Rs. 2,000 as litigation cost to the complainant.

(3.) THE materials on record establish that upon interruption of supply of electricity on 27.10.2008 a written complaint was lodged by the complainant on 1.11.2008 with the Grievance Redressal Officer, South -West District, CESC Ltd. CESC Ltd. replied to the said letter by its letter dated 12.11.2008 by stating that D.C.supply to the premises of the complainant was interrupted due to cable fault that had occurred few days earlier. It was further informed to her that due to non -availability of D.C. plant and equipments including cable switch gear and other accessories it has become extremely difficult for the CESC Ltd. to maintain D.C.supply. Accordingly CESC Ltd. expressed their inability to restore supply of electricity to the premises of the complainant. The facts as above stated hereinbefore have been amply proved from the materials on record. It is evident therefrom that during the whole of 2006 and 2007 the CESC Ltd. did never disclose to the complainant/respondent as to the difficulty if any in supplying electricity to the premises of the complainant through D.C. mode. On the contrary it adopted an illegal tactics of arms twisting by interrupting supply of electricity for no fault of the complainant without prior intimation to the complainant that the supply of electricity through D.C. mode needed to be altered to A.C. mode or by asking her to make necessary arrangements for supply of electricity through A.C. mode. That again before disconnection of electricity on 27.10.2008 without any default on the part of the complainant, the CESC Ltd. also did not intimate that supply of electricity needed to be altered