IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD , AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 69/2017.
Date of Filing : Date of Admission : Date of Disposal :
03.05.2017 18.05.2017 30.06.2017
Najrul Islam Mondal,
S/o Samad Ali Mondal,
residing at Vill: Garaberia,
P.O. Sarangpur, P.S. Domkal,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin; 742 304. …………………………………… Complainant.
-Vs -
A.E. & Station Manager,
Domkal C.C.C., WBSEDCL,
P.O. & P.S. Domkal,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin; 742 303. ……...…..……............ Opposite Party.
Sri Deba Prasad Bhattacharjee, Ld. Advocate … for the Complainant
Sri Siddharth Sankar Dhar, Ld. Advocate … for the Opposite Party
Present : Anupam Bhattacharyya ……… President.
Chandrima Chakraborty …. .…. Member.
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
J U D G M E N T
Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the case present before the Forum for adjudication may be summarized thus :-
The case stated in the complaint, in diminutive, is that, the Complainant is the consumer under the Opposite Party being Electric Meter No. 420737. The Complainant alleged that the said Electric Meter provided by the Opposite Party is a defective one wherein the Meter reading showed as 16 mentioning the word ‘Stop’ continuously from 27.07.2013 to 09.01.2014 and the said defective Meter showed reading on 30.03.2014 as 2427, on 04.07.2014 as 2941, on 08.10.2014 as 3249 and on 01.01.2015 as 3544.
Thereafter the Complainant received a Bill on 14.07.2015 mentioning a new Meter No. 391692 amounting to Rs. 18,707/- only and the Complainant sent notice to the Opposite Party on 23.03.2017 claiming the explanation of the said Bill but the Opposite Party ultimately demanded a sum of Rs. 19,003/- only from the Complainant within three days and also threatened to disconnect the electricity connection of the Complainant what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed by the Opposite Party the Complainant finding no other alternative than to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Party.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party filed the Written Version denying the contention made by the Complainant in his complaint and stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the Complainant has no cause of action, barred by limitation and the Forum has no jurisdiction to deal the instant matter.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
The specific case of the Opposite Party in gist, is that, actually the Complainant is a consumer under this Opposite Party having Consumer ID No. ID 312309433 since 15.01.2012 . The 1st Electric Bill of the Complainant was generated on 19.10.2012 for 75 units which was show to be issued after 9 months from the date of installing the said Meter. In the next quarter, for 19.10.2012 to 28.01.2013 the Bill was for 54 units and for next 2 quarters the Bills were for 0 units and in next 2 quarters from 28.07.2013 to 06.01.2014 the meter reading showed STOP in reading 130 and for these 2 periods average Bill of 60 units & 54 units was charged. Thereafter in next billing cycle from 06.01.2014 to 07.04.2014 the Opposite Party checked Meter of the Complainant which showed the reading as 2427units and the Opposite Party charged for consumption of 2297 units amounting to Rs. 12,208/- only with the slab tariff benefit for 24 months. In the next cycle from 07.04.2014 to 04.07.2014 the Bill was charged for 514 units and for next cycle from 05.07.2014 to 08.10.2014 the Bill was charged for 308 units and from 08.10.2014 to 10.01.2015 for 295 units.
But when the accumulation of Bill was raised the Complainant applied for a check Meter and the said Meter was found to be defective and a Note Sheet was duly initiated. Due to difficulties in system regeneration of Bill was not possible as the Bill was charged in legacy period and SAP was introduced for which no Bill was given upto 2039 units which was advised to pay by 23 installments but the Complainant failed to pay the same and enjoyed the electricity without payment of any amount. So the Opposite party issued a letter dated 18.04.2017 for total outstanding payment of Rs. 19,009/- only but of no result.
Thus, the Opposite Party denied any deficiency and negligence in rendering service towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of this case.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
Point for Determination
1. Whether the instant case is maintainable ?
2. Whether the Complainant is a consumer ?
3. Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for convenience and brevity.
The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that, whether the Opposite Party are justified to charge the said disputed Bill in favour of the Complainant and whether the Complainant is at all liable to pay the said Bill amount towards the Opposite Party or not.
On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Ld. Lawyers for the both parties and the material evidences on record, it is evident that admittedly the Complainant is a consumer under this Opposite Party having Consumer ID No. ID 312309433 since 15.01.2012 .
The record reveals that it is admitted by both the parties that the Electric Meter installed in the residence of the Complainant (Meter No. 420737) was a defective one for which the reading of units in this defective Meter was incorrect and thus the amount calculated the electric consumption as per this defective Meter reading is not justified at all.
It is further evident from the case record that the Complainant admitted the fact that last Bill dated 14.07.2015 amounting to Rs. 18,707/- only mentioned a new Meter No. 391692 which revealed that the said defective Meter was duly changed/replaced by the Opposite Party concerned before 14.07.2015.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
But perusing the Written Version filed by the Opposite Party nowhere it is found that on which date the Opposite Party had/has replaced/changed the said defective Meter in the residence of the Complainant though the Opposite Party has admitted in the paragraph No. 8 of the said Written version that the previous Meter was a defective one.
Moreover, the Complainant specifically stated at the time of hearing argument that when the Opposite Party has replaced/changed the said defective Meter without informing the Complainant and the Complainant has no knowledge regarding such replacement of the defective Meter before the Complainant has received the Bill dated 14.07.2015 wherein the new Meter No. was mentioned which is clearly evident from the photocopies of the documents (Electric Bills) filed by the Complainant that the Bill dated 19.01.2015 showed the previous defective meter being No. 420737 and afterwards the Bill dated 22.04.2015 showed the new Meter No. 391692.
Thus it is very much obvious that within the period in between 19.01.2015 to 22.04.2015 the said defective Meter was replaced but without any proper information towards the Consumer/Complainant.
It is also revealed from the photocopies of the documents submitted by the Complainant that the unit reading of the defective meter was charged by the Opposite Party including the present reading of the fresh and perfect Meter which is not at all justified.
But the fact remains that duly admitted their fault the Opposite Party advised the Complainant to pay the outstanding Bill amount by 23 installments and the Complainant failed to pay any amount and/or installment towards the Opposite Party concerned though the Complainant has being enjoying the electricity. Thus it is also clearly proved that the Complainant has enjoyed the electricity without payment of any amount towards the Opposite Party which is also not at all justified.
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
Thus in the instant case it is obviously evident that both the Complainant and the Opposite Party both are deficient and/or negligent.
So, it is crystal clear from the record that the Opposite Party had duly replaced the defective Meter by a new one and claimed the Bill as per the reading new Meter. Thus in our opinion due to accumulated reading a huge electric bill for Rs. 19,009/- only was served upon the complainant which he enjoyed and consumed for which the Complainant is under obligation to pay the said Bill amount.
But though the Opposite Party had replaced the defective Meter without intimating the Complainant about the same and the Complainant had/has no knowledge regarding the said replacement of the defective Meter the Opposite Party is not entitled to get the entire Bill amount as claimed.
So it is the unanimous view of the Forum that the Complainant is get the benefit of 10% reduction from the total Bill amount and shall be paid in some installments as the Opposite Party agreed to receive the Bill amount in installments as the Opposite Party has specifically admitted and stated in their Written Statement.
Moreover, though the Complainant has been enjoying the electricity without payment of any amount the Forum decided not to award any compensation in favour of the Complainant.
Thus the Complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 17,108/- only (after deducting the 10% from the total Bill amount of Rs. 19,009/- only i.e. Rs. 19,009/- minus Rs. 1,900.90/- which calculated as Rs. 17,108.10 & in round figure Rs. 17,108/- only) by 20 monthly installments @ Rs. 855.40/- only per month. The Complainant is also directed to pay the current electric Bills as per date mentioned in the said Bill.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
The Complainant is further directed to pay the 1st installment within one month from the date of this Order.
In light of the above analysis, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has partly proved the case in his favour is entitled to get the relief in part as prayed for and consequentially the points for consideration are decided partly in affirmative.
In short, the Complainant deserves success in part.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Opposite Party without any cost.
That the Complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 17,108/- only (after deducting the 10% from the total Bill amount of Rs. 19,009/- only i.e. Rs. 19,009/- minus Rs. 1,900.90/- which calculated as Rs. 17,108.10 & in round figure Rs. 17,108/- only) by 20 monthly installments @ Rs. 855.40/- only per month.
That the Complainant further directed to pay the 1st installment of Rs. 855.40/- only within one month from the date of this Order.
That the Complainant is further directed to pay the current electric Bills as per date mentioned in the said Bill as received from the Opposite Party along with the amount of installment per month.
Cont. ……….…. 8
= 8 =
That in case of any default in payment of current Bill and/or payment of installments per month on the part of the Complainant, the Opposite Party is at liberty to act as per the Rules.
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the Order by the Opposite Party within a period of one month from the date of this Order, the Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, till its realization, as punitive damages which amount shall be deposited by the Opposite Party in the State Consumer legal Aid Fund.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
