Tripura

West Tripura

CC/17/2015

Sri. Nipendra Datta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Managing Director & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.Nath, Mr.A.Debnath, Mr.P.Saha, Mr.S.Pandit.

13 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA  :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 17 of 2015

Sri Nipendra Datta,
S/O- Late Ramesh Datta,
Dhalai, Sonamura,
Shipahijala.                .….…...Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Chief Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.
Bidyut Bhaban,
Bhuturia, Agartala,
West Tripura.

2. Senior Manager,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
Sonamura Electrical Sub- Division,
Sonamura, Shipahijala.        ..............Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI  U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Swarup Pandit,
                      Sri Anjan Debnath,
                      Sri Pulak Saa,
                      Advocates.

For the O.Ps                 : Smt. Sujata Deb(Gupta)                                    Sri Sampad Choudhury,
                      Advocates.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  13.06.2016
J U D G M E N T 

        This case was filed by one Nipendra Datta against the Chief Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation. Petitioner's case in short that she was a consumer and getting electricity on payment of charges. He has a Grill welding house and was running the factory with the electricity. The meter was not working properly. So, he prayed for changing the meter. There was delay in replacement. After some delay  the meter was replaced but the new meter was not working properly. He again complained but the employee of Tripura State Electricity  Board reported that the meter was O.K. But in one month the meter reading shown abnormally high 551 unit. Due to this improper high reading of consumption petitioner has been suffering. So, he prayed for redress before this Forum.

2.        O.P. State Electricity Board appeared, filed W.O denying the claim. It is stated that complainant's prayer is vague and unreasonable and it is liable to be rejected. 

Petitioner produced 7 nos. of electric consumption bill, copy of meter change record, notice, copy of application, photocopy of meter checking report which are marked as Exhibit-1 Series.
         Petitioner also examined one witness, Nipendra Datta, petitioner of this case. 

4.        O.P. State Electricity Board produced the statement on affidavit of Nirmal Debnath, Senior Manager of Sonamura Electrical Sub-division. O.P. also produced some documents, Tripura Gazette and other details energy bills, Exhibit- A Series.

5.        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the following  points.
        (I) Whether energy consumption meter was defective and given incorrect reading?
        (II) Whether there was deficiency of service by O.P.?
    
        We shall decide the above issues and evaluate  and give decision.

    FINDINGS AND DECISIONS:
6.        We have gone through the energy bills. From perusal of the energy bills it is found that the fixed charge was Rs.300/-. Unit consumption  in the month of January 2013 was shown 551 units. Petitioner was charged 2611/-. But in the month of February it was 70 unit. In the month of March 82 units. But in the month of April it was 154 unit. May 83, January 92 unit, July 110 unit, August 108, September 50 unit, November 83 unit. January 2014, 101 unit, February, 2014, 141 unit. We have  verified all the bills and on verification of energy bills it appears to us that consumption of 551 unit is abnormal charge in the month of January 2013 period from 4th December, 2012 to January 2013. As it is a welding house sometimes consumption is higher and sometimes consumption is lower. It is possible. Senior Manager also filed some bills amount papers of 2011, 2012, 2013. We have gone through those documents also. Consumption was 55 unit from November 2011 to January, 2012, 55 unit. July to October, 26 unit. October to November, 30 units. November to December, 40 unit. But on December 2012 to January 2013, consumption was 551 units. This is abnormal and O.P. could not explain why this high consumption was shown in the meter in this one month. 

7.        Learned counsel for the O.P. submits that this Forum has no jurisdiction when a dispute arises in the mater of electricity consumption i.e., separate Forum is formed and petitioner is bound to submit his grievance to Electricity Forum. But there was nothing in the rule or Act to support that any consumer is barred to file complaint before this Forum if service is not provided to him/her properly. We have gone through some bills as produced by the O.P. also. The consumption of 551 unit appears to be abnormal. So, high. There was defects in the meter and it was changed. No defect found in the new meter. It  may so happen as earlier meter reading 55 unit was charged in average from December, 2011 to November, 2012 in the defective meter, so on the change of meter the arrears charge might have been included. But this is not stated by the O.P. Matter is not reflected in the written statement or in the evidence of the O.P. So, we can not draw such presumption.

8.        On careful scrutiny of the evidence and documents furnished before us it appears that the charging of 551 units in the month of 4th December, 2012 to 4th January, 2013 was abnormal high charge. Other reading was normal and this can vary on the consumption of electricity by the grill firm as production may be high and production may be low on different times. So, we direct that the O.P., Tripura State Electricity Board shall reduce the bill amount considering the abnormal high reading from 551 unit to average 100 unit and refund the amount taken from the petitioner for 451 units. There was some deficiency of service by the O.P. So, O.P. is to compensate the petitioner on payment of Rs.5000/-. Petitioner also entitled to get Rs.1000/- as cost. Both the points are decided accordingly.

9.        In view of our above findings petition is partly allowed. We direct the O.P. to refund the electricity charges for 451 units and also pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/- to the petitioner. We direct to pay it within 2 months, if not paid it will carry interest @9% P.A.
     

  Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA