IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                                                                                               CASE No.  CC/59/2018.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:            Date of Disposal:

     06.04.18                                    19.04.18                                   09.01.2020                       

Complainant: Sariful Islam

S/O- Late Abul Mondal,

Vill- Maniknagar, PO & PS- Domkal,

Pin- 742303

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. Assistant Engineer,

WBSEDCL, Domkal CCC 

PO & PS- Domkal, Pin- 742303

  2. The Divisional Engineer, WBSEDCL

PO & PS- Domkal, Pin- 742303

   3. The Zonal Manager, WBSEDCL,

PO & PS- Berhampore, Pin- 742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant            ………… : In Person.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1  …….    : Sri. S.S. Dhar

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Sri Subir Sinha Ray. …………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

         One Sariful Islam (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Assistant Engineer, Domkal CCC, WBSEDCL and two others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

    The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant is a consumer of STW connection under the OPs vide consumer ID No. 312182426 and he has been using electricity for irrigation of his own land to earn his livelihood. The Complainant was astonished to receive a bill of Rs.2,75,678/- on 28.10.16 and requested the OP No.1 for correction of the bill and the OP No.1 assured him that he would rectify the bill. But ultimately, the OP No.1 did not rectify the bill for which the Complainant requested the OP No.1 for examination of his meter by filing application dated 16.12.16. A challenge meter was installed on 27.12.16 and it was found on 11.01.17 that the meter was defective. The Complainant requested the OP No.1 for rectification of the bill according to new meter reading but of no result and ultimately on 28.02.18, the OP No.1 disconnected the electricity. Hence, the Complainant has filed the case praying for a direction for rectification of the bill dated 28.10.16 and compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- against the OPs.

            The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version on 28.08.18 contending that the case is not maintainable and the case is barred by law of limitation. The OP No.1 also states that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain to any disputes regarding billing of electricity unit. It is the specific case of the OP No.1 that the Complainant had an STW connection since 04.03.08 having consumer Id No. 312182426, meter No. LX602990 and the Station Manager of WBSEDCL, Domkal, CCC visited the premises of the Complainant on 09.12.16 for supervisory reading and cumulative reading was found at 6654.29 KWH on that day. On  checking the database, it was found that the billing cycle for Nov’16 was billed for 11428 KWH. So, cumulative reading was found in the meter was 55114. That Yogayog Courier Service was authorised to take the reading of the petitioner’s meter and after getting such huge cumulated units a show cause notice was issued on 10.12.16 to the agency who was liable for STW reading  but the agency gave answer of show cause on 13.012.16 with apology for the default on their part.

            The petitioner meter was TOD meter and three readings used to store for different 3 times a day which has been indicated in the said meter as T1, T1,T1. That on 09.12.16 as 10952.21, 10866.66 and 44723.83 respectively and in total 66542.66 KWH which was active cumulative reading in the meter that the total bill of the meter from 04.03.08 to 19.09.16 was shown in the bill as 11393 units i.e. 1340.35 units per year i.e. 111.69 units per month and 3.7 units per day. When the contractual demand against the meter was 5.88 KVA or 5 KW then the bill was absurd. If 5 KW Watt runs for 1 hour that the consumption wound be 5 units. It is also known that the said STW covers 60 bighas as land for cultivation. After knowing the fact of actual consumed units, the Complainant applied for challenge meter and it was installed on 27.12.16 and on 10.01.17, it was found that within 15 days interval check meter consumption was 57 units and the actual meter reading consumption is 1 unit. The Opposite Party initiated a proposal but since the consumer belongs to C(a) Tarrif class it has flat rate Tariff. The bill was generated for accumulated reading of 55186 units amounting Rs.275678.32. The bill was sent to the Complainant and this connection was disconnected on 04.01.18 by sending a letter of disconnection. That the OP No.1 visited the premises again with his staff on 28.02.18 and it was found that his STW was running by connecting the service connection illegally. So, a warning letter issued to the Complainant on 03.03.18 for illegal activity of the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. The OP No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.

            The OP No.2 and 3 did not contest the case in spite of receiving the notice.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OPs for consideration.

The Ld. Advocates for the OP No.1 submits that the case is not maintainable.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Point No.2

     The Ld. Advocate for Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

The Ld. Advocates for the OP No.1 submits that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

 On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point Nos.3&4

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is an STW consumer and he used to pay the bills as per his consumption and it has been reflected in the bills dated 01.03.17. 03.06.17 and 06.09.17 that the meter was defective. He argues that the generation of bill claiming Rs. 275678/-  is baseless and the OP No.1 has wrongly disconnected the service connection illegally on 28.02.18. He prays for a direction upon the OPs for regeneration of the bill dated 28.10.16 according to actual consumption of electricity  and compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- for mental pain and agony and litigation cost.

            In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the Yogayog courier service made a mistake in taking meter reading of the Complainant for which show cause notice was issued upon them and ultimately check meter was installed from 27.12.16 to 10.01.17 and it was found that consumption of 15 units in the check meter was recorded one unit in the meter of the Complainant. It is urged that the bill generated for accumulated reading of 55186 units amounting to Rs. 2,75,678.32/- is correct. He further argues that the meter was disconnected for non-payment of electricity charges on 27.12.17  but it was found on 28.02.18 that the Complainant  was running the STW illegally ,so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

            We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. Admittedly, the Complainant is an STW consumer since 04.03.18. Admittedly, the check meter was installed from 27.12.16 to 10.01.17. According to the OP No.1 15 units meter reading in check meter is = 1 unit in the meter installed in respect of STW of the Complainant. The Complainant has not denied the said fact in his evidence. It is also stated by the Ld. Adv for the OP No.1 that service connection was disconnected on 27.12.17 for non-payment of electricity charges but it was found on 28.02.18 that the Complainant was running his STW by reconnecting the connection illegally  and the same was disconnected  on 28.02.2018 again. The Complainant has not denied the said fact in his evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the Complainant has not come with clean hands.

            On a careful consideration over the facts and circumstances, we find that the Yogayog Courier Service who was authorised to take meter reading of the Complainant somehow did not record the meter reading properly and the Complainant enjoyed the benefit of wrong meter reading or recording of less units in his meter but we are unable to accept the logic of the OP No.1 that the meter of STW of the Complainant recorded less units since 04.03.08.

            We are of the considered opinion that the OP No.1 should assess units on average basis as per the reading of check meter for a period on 1 year only.

            Accordingly, the OPs may be directed to regenerate a fresh bill for a period of 1 year on average basis on the basis of the meter reading of check meter in comparison with original meter and the Complainant may be directed to pay the bill along with reconnection charges for getting reconnection of his STW. As the Complainant has reconnected his disconnected electricity illegally, the Complainant is not entitle to get any compensation and litigation cost against the OPs.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 06.04.18 and admitted on 19.04.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the complaint case succeeds. Hence, it is

                                    ORDERED

  that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/59/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 without cost and allowed exparte against the rest without cost.

         The OPNo.1  is directed to regenerate a fresh bill for a period of last 1 year only  on average basis on the basis of the meter reading of check meter in comparison with original meter of the complainant by sixty days from the date of this order subject to adjustment, if any.

The Complainant is directed to pay the bill to be supplied by the O.P. No. 1 by thirty days from the date of receipt of the regenerated bill . As the Complainant reconnected his disconnected electricity illegally, the Complainant is not entitle to get any compensation and litigation cost against the OPs.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          Member

  Member                                                                                                    President.