In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad

Berhampore, Murshidabad.

Case No. CC/62/2015

Date of filing: 29/05/2015                                                                  Date of Final Order: 01/03/2016

Sudha Debi Jain

Wife of Dilip Kumar Jain.

Residing at NTPC More, Chowkigram.

P.O.-Nabarun. P.S.- Farakka.

Dist- Murshidabad, PIN-742236.……………………………...Complainant

                                                          - Vs-

Station  Manager,

Farakka Group Electric Supply ,WBSEDCL,

P.O. & P.S.- Farakka.Dist.- Murshidabad.

PIN-742212.                                        …………….………………….  Opposite Party

Mr. Utpal Kumar Paul. Ld. Adv. ....………………………….………. for the complainant.

            Mr.Siddhartha Sankar Dhar Ld. Advocate…………………………for the Opposite Party.

                                            Present:   Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.           

                                                              Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                                              Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh KumarMitra,Member.  

By filing this complaint u/s 12 of the C. P. Act 1986, the complainant prays for an order directing the OP to reconnect the electric meter of the complainant immediately and further to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony.

            The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is a consumer under the OP having commercial connection being Consumer No.A070168 and service connection No.D/2002. He is consuming power for domestic purpose and paying electric bills regularly before the OP. He stated that the OP claimed Rs.5364/-.  As outstanding dues for the period of October-December 2000 and the bill period was January to March 2001. Thereafter the OP sent notice u/s-24 of Indian Electricity Act on 25th February, 2002 claiming Rs.5364. was due, then the petitioner went to OP and met officer-in-charge of the station and stated that there was no due on the part of the petitioner as claimed by the OP. That after a lapse of thirteen or fourteen years the employee of the OP claimed the said amounts as due. Then the petitioner wrote letters dated 18.03.2015 and 31.03.2015 assailing that there is no dues. But the OP did not make any reply of those letters except demanding the said amount and in default the service connection will be disconnected. As such the petitioner submits before this Forum that the OP has no right to disconnect the service line of the petitioner and prayed for redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint for deficiency of service and harassing attitude of the OP.

           The sole OP appeared by its advocate and filed Written Version on 07.08.2015 and denied the allegation as leveled against him. He averred that the petitioner has service connection vide No Id 313028669 under Farakka C.C.C. WBSEDCL. The bill for the month of Jan.2001 to March,2001 was sent to the petitioner. The bill amount was sum of Rs.5887. which include the outstanding dues for the previous months. But the petitioner has not paid the said amount so the bills sent subsequently contained the demand of such outstanding amount. The petitioner has not paid the said amount till date and the OP has right to disconnect the electric connection and the OP is not deficient in providing service to the complainant for which the complaint is liable to be rejected.                                                                                                                                                         

        The complainant filed evidence on affidavit on 07.10.2015 in which she assailed that since the connection in the year 1993 she is paying the bills regularly as per demand of the OP. She wrote letters for getting information from the OP regarding the dues in the year 2000 but she got no information against the false claim of Rs.5364. That on March, 2001 the petitioner met the officer-in-charge of the said claim ofRs.6461.27 and after receiving such letter her husband went to the OP along with disconnection letter then the OP wrote a comment on the disputed bill that there is no need of disconnection of electricity, so the letter was withdrawn by the OP. When the OP expressed that the current consumed bill will not be taken unless the outstanding due is not cleared then the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum for redressal. The argument as advanced by the advocates of the parties heard in full.

The advocate on behalf of the OP by producing a few documents tried to establish that they are entitled to get fuel surcharge from the complainant which is not paid till date and the OP was not deficient in providing service towards the complainant and vehemently objected to the compensation as prayed by the complainant.  

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Sudha Debi Jain is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?

 2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the       Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

   In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Sudha Debi Jain is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein is enjoying electricity supplied by the OP Company and it is admitted by the OP Company being the service provider.

     (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.      

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

              The opposite party being the largest Electric Supply Company throughout the state having a  lot of offices, power stations, substations and power generating stations decorated with a lot of expert hands and running its business with goodwill for a long period and providing/rendering service for development of society as well as implementing a lot of Govt. programmes. So the role of OP Company for the development of the society is unquestionable.

            The O.P. herein is the Station Manager of an office of the largest electric supply company throughout the State of W.B. The Company WBSEDCL running its business throughout the state except territorial jurisdiction of Kolkata Corporation. The O.P. Company providing power in the rural areas in different projects for a long period.  That is why the consumers in the rural areas are highly grateful to the Company. While providing powers throughout the state it also suffers from many discrepancies. Like not sending/ preparing bills in due time or sending bills for a period when the powers are discontinued and not taking reading regularly as a result the consumers suffers from paying accumulated units at a higher rate. As a consequence the consumers suffer a lot and make their grievances for remedy.

     The case of the complainant is that she used to pay bills regularly in accordance with the bills sent by the OP. All on a sudden he received an inflated bill for the billing period 01-2001 amounting to Rs.5360. After perusing the bills for the period Apr.2000 to Jun. dated 10.04.2000, Consumed units 268, bill amount Rs.747.77. outstanding amount Rs.2199.86., the bills for the period Jul. to Sept.2000, dated 17.07.2000, Consumed units 187, bill amount Rs.466.00., outstanding amountRs.2912.54., the bills for the period Oct. to Dec.2000, dated 16.10.2000, Consumed units 346, bill amount Rs.1058.,outstanding amount Rs.3521.39., the bills for the period Jan. to Mar.2001, dated 17.01.2001,Consumed units 288, bill amount Rs.5384., Rs.295.& Rs.295. i.e. totaling Rs.5887. after allowing rebate disputed bill, outstanding amount is Rs.4071.39., the bill for the period April to June.2001, dated 04.04.2001, Consumed units 205, bill amount Rs.583.,outstanding amount Rs.6174. the bill for the period July to Sept.2001, dated 17.07.2001, Consumed units 0, bill amount Rs.173.,outstanding amount Rs.5364., the bills for the period Oct. to Dec.2000, dated 03.10.2001, Consumed units 0, bill amount Rs.174,outstanding amount Rs.5364.

           After perusing the case record, electric bills and hearing the argument as advanced by the parties/ agents it appears that the outstanding details as depicted in the bills transpires that increase of outstanding dues of Rs.712.68 for the period 10.4.2000 to 17.7.2000, increase of Rs.608.25 for the period 17.7.2000 to 16.10.2000, increase of Rs.550. for the period 16.10.2000 to 17.01.2001, increase of outstanding dues of Rs.2102.61 for the period 17.01.2001 to 04.04.2001, decrease of outstanding dues of Rs.810. for the period 04.04.2001 to 13.07.2001.

       But there is no such clarification regarding the increase and decrease of outstanding dues by the OP only except verbal argument by the agent of the OP. The arbitrariness of calculating the bills transpires the deficiency of service of the OP. From the power consumption of the complainant it is clear that the complainant is economical in habits while using electricity. Apart from that she maintains the records carefully to proceed with her complaint. On the other hand the OP is very casual while preparing electric bills and always tried to extract money from their customers by the name of collection of fuel surcharge with retrospective effect, for which the customer suffers a lot. Only a few persons are aware of their consumption and keeping the records so carefully to get redressal from appropriate authority/body and others become beast of prey.

     In pertaining to the above discussion we can say that the OP should come with clean hands while preparing bills and they should not demand any money by the name of arrear dues without any clarification. The arrear dues were Rs.2199.86 as on 10.4.2000 and it is increased to Rs.6174.as on 04.04.2001 within a year. The consumer was paying bills regularly during that period. The increase & decrease graph of outstanding dues of this complainant tantamount to unfair trade Practice on the part of the OP.

     After the above discussion we may conclude that the OP is deficient in providing service to this complainant and making bills according to their will so they are restrained to collect the disputed outstanding dues from this complainant and he also directed not to serve any notice to this complainant to collect the disputed outstanding dues with a threat to disconnect the service connection. He has liberty to collect the present bills as per the consumption of the complainant.   The inaction/negligence/ discrepancies of the O.P. Company tantamount to deficiency in service for which the consumers are suffering a lot.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant is able to prove her case. So the Opposite Party is restrained to collect the disputed outstanding dues and not to serve any notice under the provision of Indian Electricity Act to collect outstanding dues in default disconnection without any further intimation.

         Hence, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Opposite party without any litigation cost.

      The OP is directed not to collect the disputed amount of Rs.5364. as outstanding dues from the complainant & he is also directed not to serve any notice to this complainant to collect the disputed outstanding dues with a threat to disconnect the service connection. But he has liberty to collect the present bills as per the consumption of the complainant.

     The complainant is directed to pay current bills according to the consumption and she should watch the bills to prevent such discrepancies.

     The current bills are to be prepared in accordance with the reading as reflected in the meter card. The OP should take appropriate steps so that the consumer should not meet such a liability to pay bills of huge amounts by the name of outstanding dues for surcharge &others. 

      At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 30 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any,  in the fund of  “ Consumer Legal Aid Account”.

      Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post forthwith, for information & necessary action.

           Dictated and corrected by me.

                  Member,                                        Member,                                       President,

 District Consumer Disputes               District Consumer Disputes              District Consumer Disputes                 Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.      Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.    RedressalForum, Murshidabad.