DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _99_ OF ___2016_
DATE OF FILING :08.09.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 30.1.2018
Present : President : Ananta kumar kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad & Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Sreekanta Chakraborty, son of Late Dinabandhu Chakraborty, Merujeen Housing Complex, Flat 210, Block A2, Kamalgazi, Kolkata- 700103.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Zonal Manage,r West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Kolkata Zone 9, Old post office street, Kolkata – 700001.
2.The Divisional Manager, West Bengal State Electricity distribution Company Ltd., Boral Division. Debanjali, Boral Main Road, Boral, Kolkata – 700154.
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGEMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are re-capitulated as under:-
Complainant is a consumer of the OP. Electricity department, being No. 115076436. Once the complainant discovered some anomalies in electric bill and these were brought to the notice of OP. department by letter dated 03.05.2016. That time, the OP. department placed a check meter and found that there was truth in the allegation of the complainant. The excess amount recovered earlier by the department was adjusted in subsequent electric bills. Thereafter, complainant was coerced to pay Rs. 20,000/- as arrears for the bills already issued. One fine morning, the complainant came to know that the electric bills were raised on average basis and therefore he had to pay Rs.5804/- for each month of July, August, September, 2016 for the bill dated 02. 07.16. The complainant again submitted a letter dt. 11.07.2016, reiterating the allegation of anomaly in electric bill dated 02.07.2016. and thereby requested the department to place check meter to determine the correctness of his existing meter. But, the OP. department has turned a deaf ear to the grievance of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum by filing the instant case u/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986. Praying for rectification of bills, change of meter and payment of compensation for mental agony and harassment.
The OP. department is contesting the case by filing written version of their statement, contending inter alia that the existing meter of the complainant having gone defective, was replaced by a new meter on 31.01.2016, and the excess amount received from the complainant was also adjusted to electric bills from April to June 2016. Check meter was placed on 25.-5.2016. after having got the letter dated 03.05.2016. of the complainant and it was found that the new meter which was installed on 31.01.2016. was running properly. According to the O.Ps., the bill has been raised according to consumption registered in the new meter and there is nothing sort of irregularity in the electric bill dated 02.07.2016. It is further averred by the OPs. that the complainant had an outstanding amount of Rs.15,403/- as on 21.11.2016 and the same was paid by him.
Upon the averments of both parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
Points for Determination:-
- Are the Ops. guilty of deficiency in service in so far as the bill dated 02.07.2016 is concerned ?
- Is the complainant entitled to relief/ reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:-
Both parties have filed Affidavits –in- Chief along with the photo copy of their documents which are kept in record.
The complainant alleges that the OP. department has charged an excessive amount of Rs. 5804/- for each month of July, August, September,2016 by raising a bill dated 02.07.2016. on the basis of average consumption, which they can’t do and this novel procedure adopted by the OPs. is characterized as the deficiency in
service on the part of the OPs. It has been submitted for the complainant that the bill dated 02.07.2-16 is prepared on the basis of old meter reading. Two electric bills (Xerox) are herein filed by the complainant and their billing dates are 19.04.2016. and 02.07.2016. Bill dated 19.04.2016. is raised on the basis of old meter reading and bill dated 02.07.2016 on the basis new meter reading. If the two bills are read together by placing them side by side, it will be crystal clear that the bill dated 02.07.2016., i.e., the disputed bill is prepared on the basis of new meter reading. Regards being had to this aspect of the matter, we feel constrained to say that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs., specially when the bill is prepared on the basis of consumption registered by the new meter. The complainant is found to have failed to prove the deficiency in service as alleged by him.
Again, there is no cause action of the complainant to file the instant case. He has filed the case on surmise and conjecture. He has stated in the complaint that he came to know from the O.P’ technician, vide para- 5 of the complaint, that there is a fault in the new meter of his house. He has filed the case having heard that the billing of his electric meter is done on average basis. No one can build a castle on the air. A case can be filed only on specific cause of action arising from concrete facts. Cause of action does never arise on rumors or hearsay evidence. In the instant case, the complainant is seen to have filed the complaint on the basis some rumors and therefore such complaint is not maintainable in law.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost at once.
President
We / I agree.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
ORDERED
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost at once.
Member Member President
