C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/19
COMPLAINANT : Ahad Ali Sk
Son of Late Chainuddin Sk
Vill. Singhati P.O. Ghateswar
P.S. Dhubulia, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) General Manager,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
Bidyut Bhaban, Salt Lake
Kolkata
2) The Station Manager,
Bethuadahari Supply Station
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
P.O. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 28th June, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a consumer under the OP with regard to electricity having connection No. QT/863/STW. It is his submission that he has one shallow tube well which is run by electricity. In November, 2008 the meter became damaged which he intimated to the OP on 13.04.09 and again sent a letter regarding this on 09.11.09. On the basis of this letter the OP made an enquiry on 11.01.10 and endorsed a note on the letter as “Running Consumer, but bill not raised since 11.08.10” and the service meter is still damaged. The OP sent a bill of Rs. 1,489/-, for the month March, 2010 which was duly paid by the complainant. Thereafter, no bill was sent to him, but suddenly a bill was sent to him for the period from 01.12.10 to 30.03.10 amounting to Rs. 2,45,500/- which is an incorrect bill also as since November, 2008 no reading is taken by the OP as the meter was damaged. The OP has also threatened to disconnect the connection if the bill was not paid. So having no other alternative, he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP electricity authority has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. It is his submission also that this complainant is a consumer under him having connection No. GT/865/STW who reported in November, 08 that the meter of the complainant became defective. So the complainant petitioner was consuming electricity directly from the LT line and prayed for issuing bill also. Accordingly, last bill for March, 2010 was sent to him against which payment was also made on 30.03.10. Other bill was also sent to the complainant, but did not make any payment as a result the due amount was Rs. 12,990/-. Due to inadvertence a bill was sent to the complainant fixing date of payment on 31.01.11 amounting to Rs. 2,45,500/-. After detection of the defect the bill was rectified and the amount was fixed to Rs. 9,146/- for the period from April, 10 to December, 10. So no question of making payment of the exaggerated amount on the part of the complainant does arise. He also submits that till now the complainant has not paid the rectified bill amount of Rs. 9,146/-. Therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that this complainant is a consumer under the OP with regard to electricity. It is also established that the meter of the complainant became defective since November, 08 and the electricity bill was sent to him which was actually paid by him and electricity was consumed by him directly from the LT Line. At the time of argument ld. lawyer for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had not paid the fictitious bill amounting to Rs. 2,45,500/-. Ld. lawyer for the OP has frankly submitted in course of argument that the said bill was a defective one which was rectified by him and the rectified bill amount stood at Rs. 9,146/- which was also handed over to this complainant and the due date for payment was on 14.02.11. Complainant has not yet paid the rectified bill amount to the OP which is available from the submission of the ld. lawyer for the complainant. The copy of the bill is filed by the OP from which we find that the outstanding amount of Rs. 12,990/- for the period from 11/08 to 02/10 and 04/10 is still outstanding which is not also denied by the complainant.
So after hearing the arguments of both sides our considered view is that the complainant is to pay the rectified bill amount of Rs. 9,146/- plus outstanding amount of Rs. 12,990/- to the OP, but he has not made payment of the above said amount. It is also available from the argument of the parties that the complainant is still enjoying the electricity without any interruption from the OP. So in such a situation, we don’t find any cogent ground to grant any compensation to the complainant as the complainant has not paid the rectified bill amount. Considering all these, we hold that the complainant has become able to prove his case in part. So he is entitled to get a decree in part also.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/19 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs without any cost. Complainant is directed to pay the bill amount of Rs. 9,146/- to the OP within 15 days since the date of passing this order, in default, the OP is empowered to disconnect the electric line of the complainant. The OP is also directed to install a fresh meter on the premises of the complainant within 15 days after payment of the due amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
