West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/329/2015

Sailesh Mallick. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Engineer, Amtala Gr. Supply, Amtala. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _329_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : 20.7.2015                     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 7/9/16

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member    :     Subrata Sarkar

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             : Sailesh Malik, Mamudpur, P.O Charashyamdas, P.S Bishnupur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743503.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            : Assistant Engineer, Amtal Gr. Supply, Amtala, P.O Kanyanagar, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743398. 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President             

The short case of the complainant is that the meter no. T1292457 is a defective meter ,for which complainant informed the same to the O.P on 9.6.2015 and sent request letter not to claim 215 units of that defective meter which was not functioning, particularly when he has already paid the average bill of 300 units of the defective meter. Hence, this case.

The O.P filed written version and has claimed that this case is not maintainable  and the case was filed motivated. It is the positive case of the O.P that meter no. T1292457  was replaced with a new meter bearing no.L4204046 on 24.2.2015 . Accordingly the bill was raised as per existing norms of WBSEDCL. It has claimed that the company has rightly claimed 215 units as alleged. It has claimed that in view of the Electricity Act, 2003 WBERC (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007 all billing disputes are to be referred to CGRO/RGRO first and thereafter in case of dissatisfaction, any of the parties being dissatisfied, may prefer an appeal before the Learned Ombudsman. But surprisingly complainant without taking recourse to said Act, has filed the complaint before the learned Forum ad as such the instant complaint needs to be dismissed in limini with cost. It has further stated that as per old Electricity Act, all billing /meter disputes were to be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CESC ltd. Vs. Shri N M Banka & Ors reported in 1997 (1) CHN (SC) –Civil Appeal no.14221/96 and no other court or Forum was empowered to decide such billing/meter dispute. It has also stated that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 CTJ 1062 (“SC)(CP) where special Act is there, General Act cannot supersede the same. So, when the Electricity Act is there, COPRA being a General Act cannot supersede the same. Hence, the O.P prays for dismissal of the case.

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

                                                            Decision with reasons

At the outset we find that the dispute is a billing dispute. Herein, question of service does not arise because there is a meter which was found defective and the said meter is replaced by another one which is appearing in the photocopy of the meter card as well as the complainant’s petition.

Now question is whether 215 units which is appearing in a naked eye is fictitious bill dated 29.5.2015 wherein the previous reading shows 4289 and present reading is 4504, units consumed 0.00 of meter no.T1292457 ,which is admittedly defective meter. Again in the said bill the new meter which is being no.L4204046 shows previous reading 0.00 ,present reading 122.00 but unit consumed 122.00. Can it be possible?

All these serious irregularities are appearing in the said bill dated 29.5.2015 and total amount shows Rs.1980/- . But complainant shows bill dated 21.1.2015 wherein we find that defective meter number which is declared as defective by the O.P being meter no.T1282457 clearly shows that previous reading 3989 and present reading 4289 . Estimated adjustment unit is 300.00 amounting to Rs.1755.93  has already been paid by the complainant vide money receipt no.7415468 Rs.1147.00 and thereafter Rs.610/-  and Rs.1757/-. Thus Rs.1755.93 raised for the defective meter has already been paid by the complainant.

Now question is that the bill dated 29.5.2015  which is just four months after the bill dated 21.1.2015 wherein 300 unit already paid by the complainant showing previous reading 4289 ,which was the present reading in bill dated 21.1.2015 wherein it was mentioned unit consumed 0.00 and now in the bill dated 29.5.2015 show that present reading 4504.00 which is undoubtedly fictitious , because how the O.P got this reading of 215 units when the said meter is admittedly defective and thereby bill dated 21.1.2015  and meter was changed on 22.2.2015 wherein previous reading was 3989 as per meter card. So, the amount as claimed in the bill dated 29.5.2015 for the unit 215 has no leg to stand upon.

But O.P can easily see the meter reading of new meter no.L4204046 which is appearing 122 unit. But inevitable did not happen. It is true that the Judgment cited by the O.P to save their skin is undoubtedly attractive and we also obey the same . But this Forum is a Special Act wherein Section 3 of the Act is there as per desire of the Hon’ble legislature which speaks that this Special Act which is known as C.P Act, 1986 clearly speaks in view of section 13 and that Act not in derogation to any other Law. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Law for the time being in force.

Thus we also in the same view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 CTH 1062 that when this is a Special Act  General Act cannot supersede the same. C.P Act is the Special Act which will supersede the General Act.

Thus we find that in a necked eye the dispute as ventilated by the complainant can be solved by the O.P which is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and in order to grab the money the O.P sent a fictitious bill  showing 215 unit fictitious when the meter unit shows nil and we have come to a conclusion after considering the bill dated 21.1.2015 and bill dated 29.5.2015 as well as money receipts of payment of bill dated 21.1.2015.

Thus we find that the complainant is able to prove the unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. The claim of the claiming 215 unit is not legitimate claim since the defective meter was not functioning at the relevant point of time and raising the bill in view of bill dated 29.5.2015 as well as bill dated 21.1.2015 when the meter was stopped on and from 26.12.2014 as per meter card and meter was changed on 22.,2.2015 ,that is why consolidated bill of 300 unit was paid by  the complainant according to the bill dated 21.5.2015. So, further bill of said defective meter cannot be raised by the O.P on 29.5.2015 which is uncalled for.

Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed on contest in pat against the O.P.

The O.P is not entitled to get 215 unit as claimed in the bill dated 29.5.2015 . In this circumstances we do not propose any compensation as claimed by the complainant but complainant only get litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the O.P to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through execution case.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.Ps and a copy be handed over to the complainant free of cost.

 

Member                                                                                                                       President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        President

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

That the complaint case is allowed on contest in pat against the O.P.in pat

The O.P is not entitled to get 215 unit as claimed in the bill dated 29.5.2015 . In this circumstances we do not propose any compensation as claimed by the complainant but complainant only get litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the O.P to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through execution case.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.Ps and a copy be handed over to the complainant free of cost.

 

Member                                                                                                                       President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        President