| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 5 of 2014 Musstt. Fatima Khatun Choudhury, ……………………………… Complainant. -V/S- 1. Assam Power Distribution Co.Ltd. (CAZ) CEC, Represented by its General Manager, Silchar – 15, P.O & P.S. Silchar Sadar, Dist. Cachar, Assam O.P No.1. 2. The Manager, APDCL, Sonai Electricity Sub-Division, At Kabuganj, Dist. Cachar O.P No.2. Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared :- Sri Suddhasatta Choudhury, Advocate for the Complainant. Sri Kironendu Dutta Choudhury Advocate for the O.P. No.1 and O.P.No.2. Date of Evidence……………………….. 13-05-2014, 10-06-2014 Date of written argument……………… 06-05-2015, 09-07-2015 Date of judgment………………………. 07-08-2017 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Debnath, - Musstt. Fatima Khatun Choudhury, the consumer of Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL) for domestic Electricity connection vide consumer No. 149000009194 lodged this complaint against APDCL and Manager APDCL, Sonai Electricity Sub-Division for disservice due to raising average energy consumption bill for the month of May to August,2013 with exorbitant amount.
- She stated that the Electricity Meter No. 290524 installed in her home by O.P No.2 since, Electricity connection provided to her dwelling house. Accordingly, the complainant paid electricity consumption charges upto April, 2013 on the basis of the said traditional Meter. But from the month of May the meter reader of the O.P No.2 stopped to visit the meter and accordingly, the O.P No.2 was raising electricity energy consumption bill with exorbitant amount on average reading basis. She received the monthly bill for the month of May, June, July and August in the 2nd week of September, 2013. Accordingly, she went to the office of the O.P No.2 and reported the matter that the meter was working but the O.P No.2 did not take any step to do needful.
- So, the Complainant on 21-09-2013 send a written complaint to O.P No.2. The O.P No.2 received said complaint on 01-10-2013 by registered post but no step was taken to enquire the matter rather raising bill in the aforesaid manner and lastly arbitrarily and most illegally took step to dis-connect the electricity line.
- Hence, the complainant finding no other alternative compelled to make payment of 2,000/- on 31-10-2013 and verbally requested to raise bill as per meter but in vain.
- Thus, because of the conduct of the O.Ps she suffered mentally and financially. As such she is entitled compensation for disservice etc. of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) only and cost of proceeding of Rs.3,000/-(Three Thousand) only.
- The O.P No.1 and O.P No.2 submitted their W/S separately. In the W/S stated inter-alia that the allegations are false. They stated that the Complainant failed to take necessary step to replace the traditional Meter to a Digital Energy Meter. Moreover, added in the reply that the complainant paid the electric consumption charge upto 01-02-2013 on the basis of reading of electric consumption by the old mechanical meter but thereafter the said old meter failed to record any consumption of electricity and became defective. Hence, the SDE, Sonai Electrical Sub-Division verbally requested the complainant to purchase New Digital Electric Meter for replacement of the Old Electric Meter but the complainant failed to comply, for which as per AERC Rules and Electricity Act average bill was raised on the basis of sanction load of the complainant but from February, 2013 to October,2013 the complainant failed to make payment of electric bill.So, the SDE, Sonai Electricity Sub-Division send field staff to the residence of the complainant for giving verbal notice that if complainant failed to make payment of outstanding electric bill the electricity line of the complainant would be disconnected. Thereafter, the complainant went to office and prayed for installment. Her prayer was allowed and accordingly, she paid 1st instalment of Rs.2,000/- on 31-10-2013 vide receipt No. 430586 but without making payment of 2nd and final installment of balance amount out of bill amount Rs.3,741/- with ill advice filed the instant complaint.
- During hearing the Complainant deposed as P.W-1 and exhibited Electricity Bills vide Ext.1 to Ext.8, Complaint vide Ext.9 Payment Receipt for Rs.2,000/- vide Ext.12. The O.P No.2 also examined Sri Pallab Kanti Choudhury and exhibited the Receipt of Rs.2,000/- as Ext.A. The Ext.A and Ext.12 are documents of same matter. Perused the written arguments of the parties and evidence on record.
- In this case, the O.P took 2 (Two) defense plea. (1) The existing Mechanical Meter installed in the residence of the Complainant was not giving reading from the month of February,2013, for which average electricity consumption charge bill were raised and (2) The complainant failed to comply with installment of O.P to replace the Old Mechanical Meter to Digital Meter.
- So far as 1st defense plea is concern, it is admitted fact that the old Digital Meter install in the house of the complainant was giving proper reading upto 01-02-2013 and the complainant was regularly making payment of bills. But then plea that the meter became defective from February,2013 for which average bill were raised.
- The complainant did not admit the above fact of defect of the meter. That is why, the O.Ps are burden to bring convincing and reliable material before this Forum to establish the plea that really the Old Meter installed in the house of the complainant was not really giving proper reading from the month of February,2013. How the O.Ps detected the defect? Whether the meter reader reported the matter of defect found in the old meter to the office. Whether the said defect was informed to the complainant? All those relevant and vital facts are not established by the O.P for the reasons best known to them. Hence, we do not able to conclude that the meter installed in the house of the complainant was really defective. Thus, applying preponderance of provability principle, it is opined that the meter installed in the house of the Complainant was not defective but the O.P without any justified ground raised average consumption of electricity energy bill.
- So far as the 2nd plea as stated above is concern, the O.P stated that verbally informed the Complainant to take step to purchase digital meter from market duly approved by APDCL and take necessary step to replace the old meter with digital meter but the complainant did not comply. But the O.P failed to convince this District Forum as why the digital meter is required to replace. Whether the replacement is compulsory to all consumer as per policy making decision of the authority of APDCL or it is required to replace due to removing the defective one.
- Whatever may be the real causation for replacement but what factor restraint the O.P to bring a digital meter and replace the old one as per procedure establish by law and raise bill for replacement charges and also take monthly rental of the digital meter with the monthly energy bill.
- As the O.Ps did not produce any restrictive provision to install a digital meter and take monthly rental for it from the complainant, so, in our considered view raising energy bill on average basis ignoring the actual reading from the Mechanical Meter installed in the house of the Complainant is disservice and not taking step by the O.P to replace the digital meter and raising monthly rental bill is a deficiency of service. For which informing the complainant by the field staff of SDE, Sonai Electricity Sub-Division is also a deficiency of service of the O.Ps.
- Therefore the O.Ps are asked to refrain from disconnecting the electric line to the house of the Complainant on the above ground and adjust the outstanding arrears amount of energy bills of the complainant with the amount of the compensation to be imposed by this District Forum for disservice and deficiency of service.
- Accordingly, considering all aspect including mental agony of the Complainant. The O.Ps are directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) only for disservice and deficiency of service and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand) only for cost of the proceeding. The O.Ps are both jointly and severally liable to pay the above awarded amount. The O.Ps are asked to make payment of above awarded amount after adjustment of outstanding arrear energy bills within 45 days from today. If fail, the balance of awarded amount will be paid with interest of 10% per annum till realization of full. Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 7th day of August, 2017. | |
