West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/522/2014

1. Mrityunjoy Burman. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Pailan Group. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _522_ OF ___2014_

 

DATE OF FILING : 27.10.2014                   DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  22/9/2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :  Mrityunjoy Burman, Genexx Valley Joka, Tower-34/10-G, Kolkata-104.

 

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Pailan Group, Electric Supply, Bhasha, Bishnupur.

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

            The short case of the complainant is that he is residing at the flat of Genexx Valley, Joka as a tenant of Mr. Raj Kumar Daga . It has claimed that electric meter number of the flat is P087155 Consumer no.D140300 Consumer Code 112266363. It is the further case of the complainant that he has started living in the said flat along with number of electrical gadgets but the unit consumer has reached to a absurd level since July 2013 according to Bill dated 5.7.2013. Complainant has shown a chart showing the consumption for the month of October to December, 2011 1597  units amounting to Rs.9038/-,  July August, September 2012 unit consumed 1481 amount Rs.10,651/-, July August September, 2013 unit 2210 amount Rs.17,529/-, October, November, December 2012 un it 2313 amount Rs.18,407/-, July August, September, 2014 unit 2759 amount Rs.23,066/-. He has further stated that inspite of repeated visit to the Pailan Vasha office of the WBSEDCL and have a talk with Mr. Shikdar the then Station Manager who promised to cooperate but he was transferred within two days. Thereafter, Mr. Gourav Kumar , the acting Station Manager ensured that since the check meter of WBSEDCL proved to be functioning properly, he will inspect with his full team members to sort out the total extended line starting from the ground floor o the 10^th Floor but unfortunately they never reached the spot to inspect the same.  Accordingly, complainant claims that he is suffering for increasing absurd bill which increased their tension and mental harassment ,for which he prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac.

The O.P contested the case by filing written version and claimed that the case is not maintainable since it is a billing dispute where in the Ld. Forum has got no authority to decide such billing dispute. It has further claimed that as per present Electricity Act 2003 and Regulation thereunder all billing disputes are to be referred to Regional Grievance Redressal Officer an thereafter in case of dissatisfaction over the order an appeal can be preferred before the Ld. Ombudsman but the complainant did not avail the said opportunity. It has claimed that in order to solve the dispute technical inspection was conducted on 8.11.2014 and series of meter checking method was implanted by company’s technical person attending the said premises on 22.11.2014  and the verification report is that the meter no.P087155 was running normally. It has claimed that the total outstanding amount in respect of the said meter is Rs.44,004/- as on 24.11.2014. It has further claimed that the O.P has every right to disconnect the meter if he failed to pay the bill. It is also the case of the O.P that Section 42 of the Electricity Act clearly speaks how the billing dispute is to be resolved by a competent authority. So, prayer of the complainant is without any basis and it should be outright rejected.

Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

We have sympathetically perused the dispute as ventilated by the consumer/complainant but we find that the meter is running properly and bill amount has been increased since July 2013 as claimed by the complainant. But from the chart as shown in the complaint application para 4 we find that the amount was increased due to more consumption of electrical energy. It appears from the July 2013 bill that unit consumed is 2210 and amount is Rs.17,529/-, thereafter 2313 unit for the month of October, November and December amount Rs.18,407/- and again consumer 2759 for the month of July, August, September, 2014 amount Rs.23,066/-. But for the month of Moreover , November , December 2011 unit consumed shows 1597 and amount is Rs.9038/- . So, when the consumer was more bill amount was more. Accordingly it cannot be said in a naked eye that there is any malpractice adopted by the O.P since there is no enemical relationship with the O.P and the complainant and the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent authority of the Electricity Board to ventilate their billing dispute and thereby solve the same. But in a naked eye it cannot be said by this bench that there is any deficiency in service acted upon by the O.P since there is no evidence that meter was stopped or defective, on the contrary O.P has claimed that meter is running smoothly and it is also not the case of the complainant that meter was not functioning properly and it is stopped and inspite of that bill is being raised. So, we find that complainant has to approach with this type of critical technical point to solve their dispute to the appropriate authority i.e. Grievance Redressal Officer of Ombudsman ,if they dissatisfied with the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer of Electrical Inspector , as the case may be . But one thing should be pertinent to mention here for the knowledge of the O.Ps , because the O.P has mentioned in their reply filed on 17.6.2016 that “Complainant is not a registered consumer”.

It is true that complainant is not a registered consumer under the O.P and it is also true that one Raj Kumar Daga is the registered consumer and a question is raised whether Mrityunjoy Barman ,not being a consumer , can file such case ?

Answer is affirmative because Mrityunjoy Burman is the beneficiary being a tenant under the true knowledge of Raj Kumar Daga. It is also needless to mention here that Hon’ble High Court has observed that occupier of the premises or trespasser also have a right to enjoy electricity because it is a right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and no one in the modern days can survive without electricity , until and unless he is being evicted by due process of law. The said decision is reported in AIR 2008 Calcutta, 47.

Apart from that , same view has already been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court also. So, there is no ambiguity on the point of having enjoyment of electricity by the complainant and raising any dispute before the Forum is a Constitutional right. So, it cannot be curtailed on the plea that he is not a registered consumer. But here complainant is a beneficiary and beneficiary is also a consumer/complainant. So, for the guidance of the O.P WBSEDCL this observation was required  regarding their reply dated  17.6.2016.

Apart from that herein complainant is in a better footing being a tenant which has been proved from the series of money receipts issued by Raj Kumar Daga. So, that part of contention in the reply of the O.P has no leg to stand upon on a moment scrutiny but fact remains that O.P had no deficiency in service since the complainant has failed to prove the same and our observation is that without technical assistance the said type of dispute cannot be solved. Although we have tried to solve the dispute by appointing electrical expert in presence of the O.P but the said dispute has not yet been solved. Normally we like to solve the dispute of the complainant but herein in the instant case the dispute is a technical dispute which only can be solved by the appropriate authority as stated above and for that reason we are unable to enter into the merits of the case and the complainant is at liberty to raise the dispute with the competent authority as discussed in the body of the order.

Hence,

                                                                                    Ordered

With that sorry state of affairs application filed under section 12 of the C.P Act is dismissed since it is a billing dispute and cannot be solved in a naked eye as per observation made in above. But in the sorry state of affairs we do not like to saddle the complainant by imposing any cost .

Thus the interim order passed by this Bench on 19.1.2015 vide order no.6 is hereby vacated with a direction to the O.P to adjust Rs.20,000/- towards the electric consumption charge at the time of raising arrears bill.    

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

                                                Member                                                                       President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

 

                                                                                    Ordered

With that sorry state of affairs application filed under section 12 of the C.P Act is dismissed since it is a billing dispute and cannot be solved in a naked eye as per observation made in above. But in the sorry state of affairs we do not like to saddle the complainant by imposing any cost .

Thus the interim order passed by this Bench on 19.1.2015 vide order no.6 is hereby vacated with a direction to the O.P to adjust Rs.20,000/- towards the electric consumption charge at the time of raising arrears bill.   

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

                                                Member                                                                       President