BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 18 of 2018

1.  Sri Ananda Mohan Singha,

Narshingpur, P.O- Bakipar, P.S Dholai, Cachar, Assam……Cmplnt.No. 1

2. Sri Sanjib Rajkumar,

Narshingpur, P.O- Bakipar, P.S Dholai, Cachar, Assam……Cmplnt.No. 2

                                                                        -V/S-

                 1.    APDCL duly represented by Sub Divisional Engineer, Sonai Electrical Sub-Division, Kabuganj.……………………..…………………………….  O.P.No.1.

                 2.     Asstt. General Manager SDE-1,

Radhanadhab Road, Silchar-5……………………………………...... O.P.No.2.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                                 President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                             Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.       

            Appeared: -                Mrs. Sarmistha Paul (Bhartia), Advocate for the complainant.

                                                Mr. Deepak Kumar Deb, Advocate for the O.Ps

                         Date of Evidence                              05-11-2018, 21-12-2018,

                         Date of written argument                25-01-2019, 07-03-2019

                         Date of oral argument                     20-04-2019

                         Date of judgment                             07-05-2019

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                               Sri Bishnu Debnath

1. The complainant Sri Ananda Mohan Singha is a Consumer of APDCL, Sonai Electrical Sub-Division, Kabuganj. His Consumer number is 149000020924 and Meter No. 742754. The energy bill was raised with arrear of Rs.14,289/- on average basis, upto 05/09/2017 and accordingly he paid the Bill on 12/10/2017 vide receipt no. 829998 and bill no.2288476. But subsequently the O.P raised a revised bill for the period from 06/08/2016 to 01/11/2017 of Rs.20,186/- without adjustment of his payment made earlier on 12/10/2017. Hence, brought the instant case for adjustment of payment already been made and re-connect the electricity to his premises which was disconnected during the aforesaid period.

2. Of course, during the pending of the proceeding the electric connection was re-connected. So, now this case is for adjustment of amount already paid on 21/10/2017.

3. The O.P. in its W/S stated inter alia that average bill was raised with effect from 06/08/2016 to 01/11/2017 on the ground that due to construction work carried by the complainant in the premises the Meter box was not accessible to the Meter Reader. However, after correspondence meter box was shifted to visible place and now raising bill on reading of the meter. Not only that but also the O.P. stated that during the aforesaid period the Complainant paid Rs.14,289/- on 12/10/2017 with arrear and surcharged and while raising the revised bill on 17/12/2017 for the period from 06/08/2017 to 01/11/2017 of Rs.20,186/- an amount of Rs.9,191.90/- has been adjusted. As such the O.P. stated that there is no disservice toward the Complainant.

4. During hearing the Complainant submitted his deposition as P.W-1 and exhibited documents. He also submitted deposition of his tenant who is occupying the premises for educational institution as PW-2. His name is Sanjib Rajkumar, (the complainant No.2). The O.P. submitted deposition of Dibyendu Das as D.W-1 and exhibited the detail billing statement covering the period from 06/08/2016 to 02/05/2018, payment detail letter, addressed to the complainant regarding inaccessible height of energy meter box. After closing evidence both sides counsels submitted written arguments.

5. I have heard oral argument of both sides counsels and perused the evidence on record including written argument.

6. It is evident from the Ext. E that the O.P. issued letter to the complainant that energy meter is in the premises at inaccessible height for which created problem while taking monthly reading of energy meter. Hence, he requested the Complainant to shift the meter to a proper height. In this letter nothing mentioned as to the fact that the meter reader is unable to take reading and for which average unit consumption bill was raising with effect from 06/08/2016. Anyhow, the above letter is a convincing document to believe the plea of the O.P. that meter reader was unable to take reading of energy meter from that date. The said fact is also adduced by the D.W and deposed that due to ongoing construction work of the Complainant, the meter became inaccessible due to which provisional bill was prepared by the bill clerk. He further deposed that subsequently on serving the notice vide Ext.E, the complainant shifted the location of energy meter in accessible height and as the reading was accessible in the month of November, 2017, revised bill with effect from 06/08/2016 to 01/11/2017 prepared after deduction of payment made on 12/10/2017. To support the above plea he exhibited bill statement vide Ext.A and E Complainant’s payment statement vide Ext.B.

7. I have gone through the disputed energy bill vide Ext.5 and aforesaid statement vide Ext.A & B. From the above documents it is readable that in the revised energy bill Rs.9190.90/- has been adjusted as payment of past bill. Ext.A makes it understandable that energy bill no. 2368369 was raised for the period from 06/08/2016 to 01/11/2017 and current demand was Rs.28,086.30/- and after adding current surcharged as well as arrear principal and arrear surcharge total amount was billed as Rs.29,377/- and deduction of Rs.9190.90/- as adjustment of earlier payment grand total amount of the bill to be paid was raised as Rs.20,186/-. It is also evident from Ext.E that the Complainant paid Rs.14,289/- on 12/10/2017 which included arrear principal and arrear surcharged. That is why, O.P. adjusted Rs.9,190.90/- out of Rs.14,289/-.

8. Thus, I do not find any excess amount charged by the O.P. by raising the revised bill. Moreover, when average bill was prepared from a particular period for any cogent ground, the O.P. has right to raise revised bill from that period within a period of limitation as prescribed in the Electricity Regulation.

9. As such in this case I do not find any disservice caused to the Complainant for raising the Ext.5 energy bill. So, in this case I do not find any justification to award any relief to the Complainant.

10. So, this case is dismissed on contest without cost. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 7^th day of May 2019.