C.F. CASE No.                    :  CC/09/98                                                                                                                                           

COMPLAINANTS                :  1.      Sabidulla Sk, S/o Soleman Sk.

                                       2.      Makit Sk, S/0 Late Nengku Sk

                                       3.      Akkas Ali Biswas, S/0 Pranab Biswas

                                       4.      Tajer Ali Sk, S/o Late Mased Sk

5. Bakai Sk., S/o Late Binod Sk.

all Vill. Charsujapur, P.O. Mourgram,

P.S. Ketugram, Dist. Burdwan

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP   :  Station Manager,

                                    Debogram Group Electric Supply,

                                    West Bengal State Electricity  

Distribution Co. Ltd.

                                    Vill + P.O. Debogram,

P.S. Kaliganj, Dist. Nadia

PRESENT                               :     KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY             PRESIDENT

                      :     KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY                MEMBER

                      :     SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                    :          19^th March, 2010

:    J U D G M E N T    :

            In brief, the case of the complainants is that they are the consumers under the OP electricity authority with regard to electric connection for using shallow machine.  Though they have electric connection to use the shallow machine, but no meter was supplied to them by the OP.  The machines are not used throughout the year, but the complainants have to pay average Rs. 733/- as monthly electric charge which is an excessive amount.  Therefore on 10.11.09 the complainant No. 1 applied before the OP for supplying electric meter.  On the same date the other complainants i.e., the complainant No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 also requested the OP to install meter, as the bill amount was excessive which caused hardship on their part to pay the bill amount.  In spite of repeated requests the OP did not take any step for installation of meter.  Hence, having no other alternative this case is filed jointly by the complainants praying for the reliefs as prayed in the petition of complaint.     

            The OP, Station Manager, Debogram Group Electricity Supply has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the complainants have no cause of action to file this case.  It is his submission also that the complainants consumed electricity more than the amount paid by them @ Rs. 733/- per month for using STW line.  From his written version it is also available that under Debogram Group Electricity Supply there are 1246 consumers out of which meter is given to 1164 consumers and the process is going on to supply meter to rest consumers including the present petitioners.  He also submits that since installation of the meter the consumption bill would be prepared as per meter reading.  So the complainants have no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him. 

POINTS  FOR  DECISION

Point No.1:         Have the complainants any cause of action to file this case?

Point No.2:          Are the complainants 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 along with the annexed documents and the written version filed by the OP it is available on record that the complainants are the consumers of electricity under the OP for using shallow machine by them.  It is also available on record that the consumers pay each Rs. 733/- per month for consumed electricity.  There is no meter installed by the OP to the complainant though they applied for the same.  As the OP failed to supply meter, so the OP gave them electric connection for using shallow machine and supplied them average monthly electric bill for consumption of electricity.  From the written version filed by the OP it is also available that meter was supplied to most of the consumers in this year and the same would be supplied to other consumers including the complainants within a short time.  He has also stated that after installation of meter bills would be prepared as per meter reading of those meters.  At the time of arguments ld. lawyer for the complainants submits before us that the OP electricity authority already supplied and installed meter to the respective complainants during pendency of this case which is also endorsed by the ld. lawyer for the OP also.  Regarding delay in supplying meter to the consumer it is argued by the ld. lawyer for the OP that due to shortage of meter the same could not be supplied to the complainants at an early date.  The complainants applied for supplying meter to them on 10.11.09 and the case was filed on 03.12.09.   But from the arguments of the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available that meters are already supplied to the complainants separately during the pendency of this case.  So considering this fact we don’t find any inordinate delay or latches on the part of the OP for not supplying the meters to the complainants.  Rather as the OP could not supply meters to the complainants initially, so he gave free electric connection for using the shallow machine which is a good step undoubtedly on the part of the OP electricity authority.

            In view of the above discussions our considered view is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP electricity authority as alleged by the complainants.   So the complainants are not entitled to get any other relief as claimed by them.  In result the case fails. 

            Hence,

Ordered,

            That the case, CC/09/98 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.