West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/154/2014

Smt. Piyali Guin - Complainant(s)

Versus

AE & Station Manager C.C.C.W.B.S.E.D.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

12 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.154/2014                                                         Date of disposal: 12/05/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Das,  Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr.S.K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.                                   

          

 Smt. Piyali Guin, W/o Pritam Guin of Keranitoal, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim

 Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

 A.E.& Station Manager, Medinipur C.C.C., W.B.S.E.D.C.L. Ltd., ( Near Central Bus Stand), P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, Pin.721101...……………Op.

         The case of the complainant Smt. Piyali Guin, in short, is that the petitioner runs a Restaurant business for her livelihood with the help of electricity from the OP by means of average consumption for three months more or less Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/-.  The previous meter No.L369533 was changed with a new meter No.LT519000 in the month of January 2014.  Accordingly, bill for Rs.60,292/- on account of three months consumption of 6043 units arising out of the said new electric meter was claimed by the OP and the same has been paid by the complainant. Referring to this bill it is pointed out that the average unit is 6500/-.  Now it is alleged by the complainant that a bill for the period from June 2013 to October 2014 claiming Rs.2,37,145/- on account of consumption of electricity for the said period  which is absurd, excessive and baseless whereas per month consumed unit from 2000-2200 complaint was lodged by the consumer on 24/10/2014.  According to instruction of the OP and installment of Rs.79,867/- was deposited by the complainant on 27/10/2014 with a request for proper inquiry.  An Advocate’s notice dated 11/11/2014 but no action has been taken thereto by the OP.  Stating the case, the complainant has come before us with the prayer for passing direction upon the OP to rectify the alleged bill for the period from 22/06/2014 to 13/10/2014 as per average consumption and to adjust the paid up amount Rs.79,867/- dated 27/10/2014 and also for compensation of Rs.20,000/- with litigation cost of

Contd……………….P/2

 

                                                              - ( 2 ) -

 

 Rs.10,000/-.  In this connection, certain documents namely Xerox copy of Bill dated 13/10/2014, Bill dated 25/09/2013, Bill dated 03/07/2013, Bill dated 08/04/2013,Bill dated 24/06/2014, Application dated 20/10/2014 filed by the complainant to the OP received on 27/10/2014 and Advocate’s letter dated 11/11/2014 are produced by the complainant.       

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  The subject of allegation is denied by the OP.  The complainant used the meter for commercial purpose and in terms of her request, the load was enhanced from 3.95 kv to 27.30 kv and accordingly the meter was replaced with new 3 ph meter in place of 1 ph.  The load extension was previously more or less 6500/ 7000 consumed by the complainant.  In the Winter season the consumption was comparatively low.  So more than 24000 units enjoying 27.32 kd load for three months in the Summer season is not absurd and excessive as claimed by the complainant and thereby first installment was paid without objection.  In this connection, for non-payment of rest installments the agreement for enjoying electricity has already been automatically terminated.  The grievance of the complainant was entertained in spite of no dispute as regard to functioning of the meter as mentioned in her application.  The billing dispute is baseless.  So, there is no cause of action.  By taking high load electricity the complainant is doing business by running a Hotel in the name and style of ADDA.  Thus, the case should be dismissed.  OP submitted four documents in support of their claim.            

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the average consumption of electricity was between Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/- for monthly average 6500 units but the petitioner received a bill for the period from 22/06/2014 to 13/10/2014 for 24,544 units amounting Rs.2,37,145/-.  This is not based with the average unit consumption of earlier bills for

Contd……………….P/3

 

                                                              - ( 3 ) -

 

 average 6500 units.  In spite of that the disputed bill of Rs.2,37,145/- was partly paid Rs.79,867/- dated 27/10/2014 keeping pending rest amount of Rs.79,866/- dated 24/11/2014 and Rs.79,866/- dated 22/12/2014 with an expectation that the OP would in due course rectify the disputed bill of Rs.2,37,145/- by considering an application dated 20/10/2014 submitted before the OP on 27/10/2014.  But the OP did not entertain the grievance, alternatively claims that the disputed bill is proper, genuine and correctly prepared on the basis of actual meter reading.  This should not be accepted by the Ld. Forum because the place where the consumption was held is just a restaurant owned by the complainant for her self employment.  So, a small unit of restaurant should not be considered for commercial purpose and thereby the disputed bill should be checked and adjusted with the first payment of Rs.79,867/- as on record.  Thus, the OP should be directed to rectify the bill and for adjustment with the paid amount of Rs.79,867/- and to pay compensation and litigation cost.

        OP raised strong objection through his Ld. Advocate drawing our attention that the case suffers for want of cause of action on the ground that the disputed bill amount Rs.2,37,145/- was originated from correctly functioning meter newly installed at the request of the complainant enhancing the power loan from 3.95 kv to 27.3 kv which was also checked and verified by the competent expert of the OP during Summer season where the reading of unit will be different from Winter Season consumed in the hotel of the complainant.  The complainant enjoying enhance load in Summer Season has deposited first installment of Rs.79,867/- in respect of the said bill without any objection.  Upon the conduct of the complainant Ld. Advocate for the OP submitted that the complainant after admitting the bill and the correctly functioning the meter cannot have any valid ground for raising challenge the billing dispute.  Moreover, the complainant has agreed the functioning of the meter is satisfactory.  Thus, there is no case against the OP and as such the case should be dismissed.

        We have carefully considered the case.  Admittedly, the complainant runs a hotel business with the help of enhanced power load of 32.14 kva (27.30 kv).  The disputed bill relates to commercial connection availed of from 13/10/2014 and accordingly the electricity bill is correct as to meter reading.  In this connection, the complainant is found to have raised a complain that the disputed bill is not proper to her and as such the matter should be enquired into with proper verification.  It appears that the complainant herself submitted an application to that effect on 20/10/2014.  The OP made necessary inspection and submitted a report to the complainant disclosing that there is no irregularity or dysfunction in the meter and also reading displayed in the said meter is correct which has already been informed to the complainant on 11/11/2014 by their letter No.3227.

Contd……………….P/4

 

                                                              - ( 4 ) -

 

        Under the facts and circumstances, as discussed above, since the complainant has agreed the fact of correct functioning the meter for commercial connection and no further steps for its testification demanded, we do not find any valid ground for accepting the allegation of deficiency in service against the OP. Thus, the issues are disposed of accordingly.    

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member                         Member                             President

                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.