The court emphasized the consumer's right to compensation and the court's power of judicial review under Article 226 in modifying the Ombudsman's order.

ORDER :

1. Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Distribution Licensee argues that the Ombudsman acted without jurisdiction in awarding damages to the consumer, that is, respondent no. 1 in the writ petition, although the consumer had approached the Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) after 90 days of the cause of action which is the limitation as per Clause 6.1 of Regulation 56 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission.

3. It is further submitted that compensation was awarded from the date of the cause of action, that is, November 19, 2017, at the rate of the maximum amount of Rs.500/- per day, without any justification, although the law says that Rs.500/- or any part thereof can be awarded as compensation.

4. Thirdly, learned counsel argues that the Ombudsman clearly observed that the petitioner had not established his claim of damages.

5. However, in spite of such specific finding, the Ombudsman merely deducted twenty per cent from the total amount of compensation and ultimately awarded lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,21,400/- to the respondent no. 1 without jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 places reliance on the various communications annexed to the writ petition from the end of the respondent no. 1 which indicate that the cause of action had not crystallized before the respondent no. 1 approached the GRO for the first time.

7. The disconnection took place on November 19, 2017 and in the very next month, the respondent no. 1 had approached the authorities seeking a clarification regarding the reason for disconnection.

8. Thereafter, several communications via e-mail were exchanged and despite the respondent no. 1 having sent at least 200 e-mails, the authorities did not give any reply. Ultimately, the respondent no. 1 was compelled to approach the GRO for such inaction on the part of the WBSEDCL.

9. Since the GRO did not pass any direction on the Distribution Licensee on the prayer of the respondent no. 1 to furnish necessary details regarding the disconnection, the respondent no. 1 had to approach the Ombudsman.

10. The respondent no. 1 has made out a specific case in pleadings before the forums below that, upon being advised then by the Ombudsman, the respondent no. 1 again approached the GRO challenging the disconnection.

11. It is submitted that not only is the respondent no. 1 a layman in electricity law but that the cause of action of the respondent no. 1 has been continuing day-to-day, in view of the extreme distress being suffered by the respondent no. 1 every day from the date of disconnection till the date of approaching the GRO for the first time, in fact, till date.

12. Hence, it is argued that there does not arise any question of limitation in making the claim. That apart, learned counsel submits that the Ombudsman was justified in passing an award against the Distribution Licensee in favour of the respondent no. 1, since the respondent no. 1 has suffered sufficient harassment to entitle him to such compensation.

13. Upon considering the provision of Clause 6.1 of Regulation 56 dated August 26, 2013 of the WBERC, it is evident that the time-limit for an aggrieved consumer to submit a written petition against a grievance along with annexures, if any, is 90 days "from the date of occurrence of the cause of action."

14. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 is justified in arguing that the cause of action of the instant respondent no. 1 continued de die in diem due to the harassment regularly being faced by the respondent no. 1 in view of the disconnection of electricity, which is a basic necessity of life and part of the right to life of the respondent no. 1.

15. That apart, even if it is viewed from a different perspective, the cause of action could not be said to have crystallized prior to the respondent no. 1 being purportedly advised by the Ombudsman to prefer the specific challenge before the GRO.

16. The