AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
REVISION Petition No. 1018 has been filed against the majority order dated 3.11.95 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Case No. 301/A/95. The opposite parties in the Original Complaint are the REVISION Petitioners before us. There were two consumers having two different meters for gas supply in the same premises i.e. meter bearing No. 60917 relating to the complainant and meter bearing No. 1319 pertaining to one Mr. P.K. Biswas. The original consumer of the first said meter is no more and the complainant claimed to be the successor/beneficiary. The complainant alleged that on 8.12.93 about 20 miscreants entered her house forcibly when there was no male member of the family and disconnected the gas supply which resulted in the leakage of gas thereby exposing the inmates of the house to a reckless risk of fire. The matter was reported to Fire Brigade and an F.I.R. lodged with the local Police. The complainant claimed that she had been regularly paying the gas bills and that she was unlawfully prevented from using the gas. As a result the complainant filed the complaint before the Calcutta District Forum claiming Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and also praying for immediate reconnection of the gas. The opposite party-Gas Company''s version was that the consumer of the second said meter had left the country a few years back without informing the opposite parties and leaving an outstanding amount of Rs. 4,152.59 for the gas bills upto 11.11.91. A special checking cell which visited the premises of the complainant on 24.8.93 and 25.8.93 found that the complainant''s gas line had been tagged to the second meter pertaining to Mr. Biswas with the result that the complainant''s meter was not recording any gas consumption while the second meter went on recording a huge consumption of gas. In other words, the complainant was paying only the rent of her meter while Mr. Biswas''s meter recorded the consumption of the gas actually consumed by the complainant; pursuant to this, a bill for an amount of Rs. 15,996.65 was raised on the complainant and since this was not paid, the gas supply lines to the premises were disconnected. This version of the Gas Company was accepted by the Calcutta District Forum which held that disconnection of gas supply by the opposite parties did not amount to deficiency in service and directed the complainant to pay the bill of Rs. 15,996.65 less Rs. 4,152.59 alongwith reconnection fee for getting a reconnection of gas. The District Forum also directed the opposite party-Gas Company to take action against their staff who were responsible for conniving with the complainant in connecting her gas supply with the meter of Mr. Biswas.
ON the appeal by the complainant, the West Bengal State Commission, in their majority order took the view that disconnection without notice was not correct and also that the claim under the bill dated 4.11.93 was erroneous and therefore not payable by the complainant. The majority order directed immediate restoration of the gas connection to the complainant with liberty to opposite parties to raise separate bill for realisation of their claim if any from the complainant after giving her an opportunity of hearing and after completion of their enquiry against , their staff as directed by the District Forum. The President of the State Commission in his minority judgment pointed out that the complainant had paid only the meter rent for the gas connection of the first meter for a long period whereas the meter of Mr. Biswas, the absentee, recorded the consumption of gas by the complainant, and he agreed with the findings of the District Forum that the complainant had failed to prove that there was any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties on account of disconnection of the gas line. He, however, held that whether the dues on account of recording in the meter of Mr. P.K. Biswas shall be payable by the complainant is a separate matter and shall be decided according to the rules of the Gas Company. The President of the Commission, in his minority order, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved by the majority judgment of the State Commission the opposite party-Gas Company have filed this Revision Petition before us. The main point made in the Revision Petition is that the instant case being one of theft and fraud, there was no deficiency in service. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with the findings of the District Forum and of the President of the State Commission. We, therefore, allow the Revision Petition, set aside the majority order of the State Commission and uphold the order of the President of the State Commission. Parties will bear their respective costs. Revision Petition allowed.