C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/80
COMPLAINANT : Ashim Kumar Basu,
S/o Late Atul Ch. Basu,
Vill. Power House Para,
P.O. Debagram, P.S. Kaliganj,
Dist. Nadia.
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Station Manager,
Debagram Group Electric Supply,
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution
Co. Ltd., Vill. & P.O. Debagram,
P.S. Kaliganj, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 27th January, 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 as domestic consumer of electricity being consumer No. D-050144 of SC No. D383. It is his further case that the meter installed at his house suddenly stopped recording of units in the month of August, 09 and OP took the meter reading on 29.09.09 when stated him verbally that the OP would install a fresh one in place of a defective one. In spite of that the OP did not change the defective meter, rather sent an exaggerated bill of Rs. 1609/- for the month of Jan, 10. In the mean time, the OP provided a new service connection being No. D/21290 for his tenants, as a result of which the consumption on his part became minimise. In spite of that the OP did not change his old defective meter, rather sent a bill amounting to Rs. 2526/- for the month of April to June, 10. On 20.04.10 he submitted a petition before the OP stating about the exaggerated bill which had no basis and reconsider the matter by reducing the amount, but to no effect. Thereafter, he sent a lawyer’s letter on 07.05.10 in respect of his allegation. On receipt of the said lawyer’s letter the OP did not correct the defective meter of the petitioner. So having no other alternative this case is filed praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP 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 another service connection bearing No. D05664 was provided to this complainant’s premises on 23.02.10 and the total units consumed up to 22.06.10 was 291 units. The complainant stated that the meter was used by his tenants, but from the connection it is available that the meter stands in the name of his son one Amit Kumar Basu, S/o Ashim Kumar Basu. This OP was ready to deduct 291 units from the original meter of the complainant subject to prove that the new connection No. D05014 stood in the name of the tenants. He also submits that due to shortage of meter he could not replace the stop meter of the complainant in time. Thereafter on 17.09.10 he replaced the old meter by installing a new one. Besides this, the complainant was requested to supply test report against consumer No. D05014 to reduce the said bill as per physical load, but no such test report is yet submitted by the complainant. Naturally, this OP is not in a position to reduce the said energy bill. The disputed bill amounting to Rs. 2526/- for April, 2010 to June, 2010 is actual consumption of the petitioner. So no question of reducing the said bill amount does arise. Therefore, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same 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 the complaint along with annexed documents filed by the complainant and the written version filed by the OP and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the OP with regard to electricity being consumer No. D/050144. It is also available on record that the meter suddenly stopped to record units automatically in August, 2009 regarding which the complainant verbally as well as in written informed the OP. The OP has also stated in his written version that due to shortage of meter he could not supply and install a new one at the premises of the complainant. At the prayer of the complainant separate meter was installed at his house being consumer connection No. D 21290 which stands in the name of his son one Amit Kumar Basu. It is also available on record that at present said Amit Kumar Basu is his son. At the time of argument ld. lawyer for the complainant submits that during the pendency of the case the OP electricity authority has installed a new meter at his residence in place of the old original connection No. D383 and consumer No. D050144. He has also submitted that other problem regarding the disputed bill for the month of April to June, 10 is also amicably disposed of by the OP. In such a situation, he has no allegation against this OP and does not pray for any compensation or litigation cost as the OP has complied with his grievances.
In view of the submission of the ld. lawyer for the complainant and considering the facts of this case, we find that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in his petition of complaint. In result, we find no merit in this case.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/80 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
