Tripura

Unakoti

CC/9/2021

Md. Tabarak Ali (Represented by Md. Motachir Ali) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Computers Limited - Opp.Party(s)

C. Bhattacharjee, A. Kar

27 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION

UNAKOTI DISTRICT: KAILASHAHAR

Case No. CC 09 of 2021

Md. Tabarak Ali,

                                                                                                 son of late Hazi Mubarak Ali

                                                                                                 Vill & PO - Irani,

                                                                                                 Sub-Division - Kailashahar,

                                                                                                 District - Unakoti………

                                                                                                                                  Complainant

                                                    

                                                                                                 Being represented by his lawful attorney

                                                                                                 Md. Motachir Ali,

                                                                                                 Son of  Tabarak Ali,

                                                                                                 Vill & PO - Irani,

                                                                                                 Sub-Division - Kailashahar,

                                                                                                 District – Unakoti

 

V  E  R  S  U  S

 

                                                                                                 1. SAI Computers Limited.

                                     Distribution Franchise of TSECL

                                                                                      Kailashahar Sub-Division No.1

                                                                                      Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura

 

                                                                                                  2. The Additional General Manager.

                                                                                                  SAI Computers Limited.

                                                                                                  Distribution Franchise of TSECL

                                                                                                  Kailashahar Sub-Division No.1

                                                                                                  Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura

                                                                                                                                         Opposite parties

          PRESENT

                Smti. Sudipta Choudhury

                 President

                       District Consumer Redressal Commission,

                      Unakoti District, Kailashahar

                                                                                                                 AND

             Shri S. Sinha, Member

                Smti. M. Dutta, Member
 

               C O U N S E L

                                                                                    For the Complainant: Smti. A. Kar, Ld. Advocate

                                                                                    For the Opposite Parties: Mr. S. Deb, L.d. Advocate

          Original date of institution: 18-08-2021

    Judgment delivered on: 27-08-2024

 

J U D G M E N T

This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Tabarak Ali under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for passing necessary order directing the opposite parties that the bill dated 14.10.2020, 27.03.2021 and notice bearing No. SAI/KLS/N-06/009 are illegal and not binding upon the complainant; to issue fresh bill at the rate of average monthly bill of Rs. 635/- approx per month.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint petition are the opposite parties started their business at Kailashahar from the month of September, 2020 and prior to that the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited used to manage work. The complainant is a consumer of the Distribution of Franchise of TSECL being consumer ID No. SO2200812044 and customer category INDITS2. Being a responsible consumer the complainant has always been paying the bills within time without fail. Due to COVID pandemic situation from the month of March, 2020 the complainant was compelled to close his rice mill where the aforesaid electricity connection was established and the door of the said rice mill was closed since March, 2020. Moreover, the meter installed in the rice mill is defective and non- functioning for which monthly average bill of Rs. 635/- was used to be paid by the complainant up to August, 2020 and he paid Rs. 1900/- for three months bill. Thereafter on 14-10-2020 an imaginary bill of Rs. 7690/- was issued the complainant and it is also written in the bill that "House Lock". Then the complainant met with the opposite parties and requested them to consider the matter and the opposite parties gave assurance to the complainant that they would consider the matter, but they did not do any thing and after a long period on 07.03.2021 issued another bill of Rs. 41,025/-. Then again the complainant went to the office of the opposite parties for rectification of the bill, but no steps were taken by the opposite parties for rectification of the bill. Meanwhile on the basis of another bill vide No. LIKE@799057 dated 11-05- 2021, which was not given to the complainant, a notice was issued to the complainant on 08-06-2021 bearing No. SAI/KLS/N-06/009 demanded an imaginary amount of Rs. 61,225/- out standing bill and to make payment within seven days. After receipt of the notice the complainant issued a notice through his engaged Advocate on 15-06-2021 to give him proper redress. The opposite parties received the notice and on 29-06-2021 by reply stated that everything is right, the complainant have to pay Rs. 61,226/- within seven days otherwise they will take legal steps. The cause of action arose on and from 04.10.2020 and is still continuing. As such, the complainant has approached this Commission with a prayer for passing necessary direction aforesaid.

3. On receipt of the notice opposite parties have appeared and submitted written statement denying the factum of the petition. It is stated by the opposite parties that in the complaint petition the complainant stated that his business unit was closed since March, 2020 due to Covid 19 pandemic situation, but as per the bill record it is clear that the complainant paid bill till August, 2020 though the lock down was imposed in the month of March, 2020. It is further stated that the bills issued by the opposite parties are not defective or imaginary. As it was not possible to read the actual meter and as such they adopted 'LDHF' formula and 960 unit bill was calculated per month as the business unit of the complainant is a rice mill run by electric motor.
When the complainant requested the OP No. 01 to reduce the unit, the OP reduced it to 800 unit per month. If the business unit of the complainant was really closed, the complainant could have informed the OP about the closer of the bill and that was why the complainant didn't inform the same. As per the office record of the opposite parties the complainant never sought to replace the defective meter. The complainant in reply to the Advocate's notice requested him to pay the bill, but instead of paying the bill the complainant filed the instant case. The real fact as narrated by the opposite parties is that the complainant is the owner of a rice mill which was located at a distance of 0.5 km of his house. The meter reader of the opposite parties regularly visited the business unit of the complainant to take the meter reading, but the complainant forbade the meter reader so that he could not verify the meter, even when the vigilance staff visited his place he tried to attack them and refused to show his meter as to whether the meter was defective or not and as such, the opposite parties were bound to follow the LDHF formula. Again it is stated by the opposite parties that the complainant did not apply for any disconnection process and as such, the OP's denied that the business unit was stopped. It is further stated that the Tripura Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2011 clearly authorises the opposite to issue the bill in house lock status. As such, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

4. Both the sides produced two witnesses each by filing examination in chief and also relied on some documents. From the side of complainant he examined himself and another witness namely Mujaffar Ali as PW 1 and PW 2 and from the side of the opposite parties two witnesses, namely Sri Satyendra Bahadur Singh and another Sri Swapan Debbarma have been examined as OPW No. 1 and OPW No. 2.

Heard learned counsels of the contending parties.

Points For Determination

5. The points which are required to be adjudicated upon in this case are as follows:-
                      1. Whether the bill dated 14.10.2020 and 07.03.2021 and notice bearing No. SAI/KLS/N-06/009 are illegal and are not binding upon the complainant?

                      2. Whether complainant is entitled to be issued fresh bill @ average monthly Rs. 635/- by the opposite parties?

Decision And Reasons Therefore:

6. Points Nos.1 and 2:-. Whether the bill dated 14.10.2020 and 07.03.2021 and notice bearing No. SAI/KLS/N-06/009 are illegal and are not binding upon the complainant and Whether complainant is entitled to be issued fresh bill @ average monthly Rs. 635/- by the opposite parties?

6.α.

Both these points are taken up together as they are inter related The complainant has adduced evidence by way of examination- in-chief on affidavit as PW-1 Md. Tabarak Ali, and recapitulating the facts as have been stated by him in the complaint petition and as such, for the sake of brevity the evidence is not repeated. However, during re-examination, the complainant has exhibited the following documents: -

Exbt. 1 Original Powr of Attorney (containing three pages)

Exbt. 2 Notice SAI Computer LTD dated 08.06.2021 (containing two Pages)

Exbt. 3 Advocate Notice dated 15.06.2021 (containing three pages)

Exbt.4 Reply of Advocate Notice dated 29.06.2021 (containing two pages)

Exbt.5 Electric bill door close

Exbt.6 Electricity Bill Paid

Exbt.7 Original copy of money receipt dated 17.08.2020

Exbt.8 Original copy of electric bill dated 29.09.2020

Exbt.9 Original copy of electric bill dated 20.02.2021

Exbt.10 Original copy of notice dated 08.06.2021

Exbt.11 Original copy of advocate notice dated 15.06.2021

Exbt. 12 Original copy of letter dated 29.06.2021
During cross-examination on behalf of OPs complainant stated that after taking charge by SAI Computer, he did not submit any bill. He denied that he did not submit letter to the SAI Computer for closing of his rice mill nor submitted any prayer for disconnection of line and that the meter installed was not defective and non-functional and that he did not pay bill amounting to Rs. 1900/- for three months and that the bill amounting to Rs. 7690, 41,025 and Rs. 61,226 were not imaginary bills and that he did not allow the staff of the SAI Computer to inspect the meter or he used to close the door of the mill or that he tried to attack upon them. He also denied the bills were issued on the basis of LDHF. However, he admitted that the authorities of SAI computer inspected the electric meter of his rice mill. He also denied that there was mismatch of the meter of his rice mill when the officials of vigilance staff of the SAI computer visited his rice mill and that there was change of the electric meter of SAI computer. He also denied that as per the inspection made by the general manager of TSECL, there was mismatch in the electric meter number installed in his rice mill and that he has changed the electric meter as he did not pay the electric bill time to time.

6.b. PW2 Mujjafar Ali has echoed the facts as narrated by PW1 in is examination in chief. The cross examination of PW2 is nothing but denial about the fact that the rice mill was not closed since March, 2020 or that the bill of Rs. 1900/- was not submitted for three months.

7. OPW No.1 in his Examination-in-chief stated in the line of his written statement. It is the deposition of OPW 1 that the opposite parties took charge of electric supply of Kailashahar Division in Sept. 2020. After taking charge the meter reader of the OP went to the rice mill of the complainant on many occasions to read and verify the meter, but the complainant and his son did not allow to read the meter, even when they saw the meter reader, they closed the door of the rice mill and as such, the OP started to issue bills on the basis of LDHF formula as it was under house lock status and as the business unit is a rice mill run by electric motor, as per the TSECL Regulation only 960 unit was calculated for monthly billing under house lock status. OPW I stated the complainant requested to reduce the unit and as per the request it was reduced to 800 unit per moth and thereafter, the complainant filed the instant case. OPW 1 further stated that in the second week of January, 2022 the supervisor of the OP, namely, Sajim Uddin went to the rice mill to verify the meter, but the son of the complainant Motachir Ali did not allow him to verify the concerned meter even he tried to attack him with dao and on 27-01-2022 at around 2 pm the vigilance team of the office visited the rice mill of the complainant and verified the meter in presence of the complainant and took photograph of the meter and found reading only of 163 unit, which is very low for a rice mill and thereafter, the office verified the consumer history and found that the said meter was not the actual meter and the complainant illegally changed the meter and committed theft or electricity and thus violated section 135 of the Electricity Act and subsequently 11-06-2022 the staffs of the office along with the Police went to the rice mill of the complainant and disconnected the electric line in presence of the complainant. It is further deposed by OPW No.1 that the meter which was found at the time of verification of meter ID SL. No. 20152696, but as per office record the meter which was installed by TSECL Authority of which meter ID is U236057 and as such it is clear that the complainant has changed the meter and thereby committed theft for which he did not allow the meter reader to read the meter.

OPW 1 stated that the complainant has submitted a petition before the L.d. Forum after the disconnection of the electric Line (when theft was found by OP). In reply to the same on 31.08.2022 a petition was submitted before the Ld. Forum Under Order-XXVI, Rule-9 of C.P.C it was prayed that as the Original Meter was installed by the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) that is why TSECL is proper and neutral third party in respect of examining the electric Meter and accordingly, it was prayed to Appoint Deputy General manager of TSECL, Kailashahar Electrical Division as a commission for examining the Electric Meter and the Ld. Forum allowed the said petition and has appointed Dy. General Manager of TSECL as commissioner and directed to submit the report and the Commissioner has submitted the report after duly verifying the concerned meter and from the report it is revealed that there is mismatch in the Meter ID. It is stated that the Bill which was issued underHouse Lock Status following LDHF formula as provided by TSECL Regulation, 2011 and disconnection of concerned electric line of complainant is justified and thus, the complainant is supposed to pay the Bill under the L.D.H.F formula from Sept. 2020 upto the date of disconnection i.e., 11-06-2022 for 800 unit per month amounting Rs. 6484.60 (per month) with charges. The unit which is calculated is considered under L.D.H.F formula is the existing meter ID. On identification by OPW 2, his report and signature on the report were marked as Ext.A as a whole.

8.b. During cross examination OPW No. 2 stated that he does not know when the connection was actually given to the complainant as the same is maintained by SAI Computer. OPW No. 2 stated that a register is maintained for the meter ID issued to the consumer and on his visit he found that ID No. of the energy meter issued to the complainant to the earlier U236057 and the existing ID is 20152696. He admitted that he does not know on which date manual meter was converted to electronic meter at Kailashahar and they provide meter to the consumer but he does not know how SAI Computer provide meter to the consumers.

9. It is admitted fact that the rice mill of the complainant is run by commercial Electricity line. It is iterated by the complainant in his complaint petition that his rice mill was closed since March, 2020. But that his rice mill was closed in that respect no information was given to the opposite parties. Again, it is stated by the complainant that he is to pay monthly average bill of Rs. 635/ upto August, 2020, which means that the business unit of the complainant was not at all closed and had it been so, the complainant would not have paid the bill upto the month of August, 2020. Vide Money Receipt dated 17/08/2020 the complainant paid Rs. 1992/-. After that month the complainant did not pay any bill. In the mean time from the month of Sept. 2020 the opposite parties took charge as franchise of TSECL at Kailashahar. It appears from the bill for the month of September, 2020 that 960 units were consumed by the rice mill of the complainant. It is also aired by the complainant that his meter was defective and non-functioning. Had it been so, he could have informed the opposite parties for change of the meter, but no representation was filed by the complainant for replacement of the so called defective meter by a new one. In the bill raised by the opposite parties it is clearly written "House Lock". The complainant has failed to prove that his business unit was not in house lock position when the meter reader went there for reading of the meter. OPW No. 2, DGM, Electric Division, Kailashahar as per order of this commission personally visited the rice mill of the complainant regarding electric meter installed in his rice mill and submitted his report. On his visit he found that the meter ID of the complainant previously installed does not match with the existing meter ID. As such, the opposite parties presumed that the meter of the rice mill was changed by the complainant himself for the purpose of theft. If the opposite parties were sure that theft was committed by the complainant by changing of the meter, they ought to have filed complainant with the police, but that was not done in the case at hand as OPW No.1 during cross-examination clearly stated that there was no police complaint for change of meter as pleaded by them. Mere suspicion is not sufficient to prove that theft was committed by the complainant.

9.a. Further, whether either parties preferred any criminal case or not is not the question before this fact rather the matter before this Commission is relating to consumption of electricity and its payment It is a fact that unit consumption in domestic line and commercial line will not be at par. Consumption in case of commercial line will be higher as it is run by motor. The opposite parties by cogent evidence could be able to prove that from the month of September, 2020 to till disconnection of the electric line in the rice mill of the complainant, i.e., up to 11-06-2022 the rice mill of the complainant was in working condition since during the period the complainant also did not pray for disconnection of the electric line. Why the complainant did not pray for disconnection of electric connection of his rice mill for such long period is a reason known to the complainant only. Had the rice mill of the complainant really been closed, as contended by the complainant, he could have approached to the opposite parties for disconnection of electric line. Therefore, it is apparent that the rice mill of the complainant was not closed from September, 2020 till 11-06-2022, the date of disconnection of the electric line rather connection was there and as the same was not disconnected even if it is presumed for argument sake that rice mill was not running, the complainant is liable to pay for keeping electric connection. Therefore, issuance of notice by OPS cannot be said to be illegal.

10. Thus, the complainant is liable to pay the bill for the period as claimed by the OPS. Now the question is regarding the units for which payment is to be made.

10.a. That as during the period the OPs could not read the meter reading, LDHF formula is liable to be applied. As per Notification of the Tripura Electricity Regulatory Commission issued vide No. F.25/TERC/09/639 daed 10-01-2014 as published in Tripura Gazette Extraordinary Issue on 05-08-2014 in case of house lock status LDHF (Load, days, hour and factor) is to be applied for the purpose of determination of consumption of electricity. In case of commercial line the load factor is 50%, but in case of theft the load factor is 100%. As observed aforesaid, the opposite parties could not prove that theft was committed by the complainant nor any step being taken by them, load factor is 50%. In absence of accurate electricity consumption we are to adopt hypothetical formula to assess the consumption. For commercial line the load is 6.4. We assume that the rice mill would run for 26 days for 7 hours and thus, the monthly consumption is calculated as 6.4 X 26 X 7 X 50%=582 unit. The complainant is thus liable to pay the amount of 582 units per month for his rice mill.

11. It is surfaced from the record that from the month of Sept. 2020 till 11-06-2022 no bill was paid by the complainant. The opposite parties, therefore, will raise bill to the complainant at the rate of 582 units per month for the aforesaid period. Naturally a huge amount will be due to be paid by the complainant and considering the situation, the opposite parties will not charge any interest over the amount to be calculated and at the same time shall allow the complainant to pay the bills by 10 (ten) instalments commencing from the month of October, 2024.

Accordingly, both the issues are decided.

ORDER

In the result, it is ordered that the opposite parties will raise bill to the complainant at the rate of 582 units per month for the period from Sept. 2020 to 11-06-2022. The opposite parties shall not charge any interest over the amount to be calculated and at the same time shall allow the complainant to pay the bills by 10 (ten) instalments commencing from the month of October, 2024

Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant free of cost and the OP free of cost. This matter is disposed of on contest. Make necessary entry in the TR.

ANNOUNCED