In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad

Berhampore, Murshidabad.

                                                     Case No. C.C/16/2015

Date of filing: 04/02/2015                                                                         Date of Final Order: 27/07/2015

Maya Sanyal

W/O- Late Narottam Sanyal.

Residing at Mahabirtala. P.O.-Jangipur,

P.S.- Raghunathganj

Dist- Murshidabad, PIN-742213          ……………………………...   Complainant                                                  

                                                           Vs

Station  Manager,

Jangipur CCC,W.B.S.E.D.C.L,

P.S.-Raghunathganj

Dist.- Murshidabad.

 PIN-742213                                        …………….………………….   Opposite Party

Mr.Subhanjan Sengupta. Ld. Advocate………………………….……….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.

FINAL ORDER

SamareshKumarMitra,Member.  

               By filing this complaint u/s 12 of the C. P. Act 1986, the complainant- Maya Sanyal , prays for an order directing the OP to change the electric meter  of the complainant immediately and further to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony.

                The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she is a consumer under the OP having Consumer I.D. No. 313118829 in the name of her husband since deceased. She regularly pays the electric bills. She was informed by the meter man that the meter was moving very fast. She was supplied a bill of Rs.57,727/- on 5.01.2015 and she was mentally injured and shocked seeing the bill amount. On 07.01.2015 the complainant made a prayer to the OP to make a suitable remedy about the fictitious bill. On 19.01.2015 she received a letter from the OP where she was threatened that if the bill was not paid, the electric line would be disconnected. The complainant approached the OP praying for proper redress but in vain. The OP did not pay any heed to her prayer. The act of the OP is a glaring example of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the OP, she took shelter before the Consumer Forum for proper redress of her grievance. Hence, this complaint.

                The case of the OP, in brief, is that all the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint in different paras are all baseless and frivolous. The Meter having Consumer ID No. 313118829 stands in the name of Narattam Sanyal. The OP sent a bill for the month of January, 2015 to March 2015 for the sum of Rs.57,727/-. The bill amount is correct and it was prepared according to the meter reading. Maya Sanyal applied for replacement of her meter and deposited the quotational amount on 30.12.14 for installation of the challenge meter. The Linesman Md. Azizur Rahaman inspected the meter on 05.01.2015 and the current meter reading was 8643 units i.e. 12 units was consumed for 6 days which is quite normal according to the present load. However, the consumer was not satisfied with the Inspection Report. The present connected load is found to be 1.81 KVA comprising of appliances like CFL 8 Nos, Tube 3 Nos, Fan 4 Nos, T.V. 1 No. Inverter 1 No., Freeze 1 No., Light Bulb 100 watt. On 06.01.2015 Linesman Azizur Rahaman went to effect the Challenge Meter but the petitioner refused to effect the Challenge Meter in her house. Subsequently, on 13.1.15 again she applied for checking the meter. The OP by a letter dt. 19.01.2015 informed the petitioner about her non-cooperation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Due to non-payment of the dues the OP is entitled to disconnect the service line of the petitioner. There is no merit in this case and prays for dismissal of the complaint of the petitioner.

            The complainant also filed a petition u/s-13( 3B) of C.P.Act,1986 praying for interim order and considering the exigency this Forum allowed interim order in favour of the complainant and directed the OP not to disconnect the service line of the complainant till 02.03.2015.

           The advocates of the parties advanced arguments on 15.07.2015 and heard in full.

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

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant Maya Sanyal 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?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) prayed for?                                              

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 Maya Sanyal 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 at Rs.1,00,000/- ad valorem which is 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 for 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.

         In the instant case the complainant being a domestic consumer paying bills regularly in accordance with the bills but all on a sudden the OP Company sent a huge bill which is not in accordance with the meter reading. The meter card shows the reading 1697 units on 30.06.2014, 5043 units on 29.09.2014 thereafter a comment that ‘First move’ then the reading 8643 units on 30.12.2014 and 8655 units on 05.01.2014. The disputed bill during the months Oct.14 – Dec.2014 (Annexure-B) shows the last reading 2107 units and current reading 8643 units so the units consumed 6536  for three months and the billing amount is Rs.57727/- within the due date. Another disputed bill  during the months Jan.15 – March 2015  shows the last reading  8643 units and current reading 8825 units so the unit consumed 182 and the billing amount is Rs.39283/- within the due date. During the period of argument the consumption of the complainant shows as meter reading 190 units on 4.07.2013, meter reading 591 units on 28.9.2013, meter reading 882 units on 28.12.2013,meter reading 1072units on 25.03.2014, meter reading 1697 units on 29.06.2014,meter  reading 2107 units on 25.09.2014 and the bills are paid, receipts of which are annexed with C.R. The complainant getting such huge bill rushed to the OP and filed written objection but of no good. The answering OP always tried to establish that the complainant consumed such huge units  and he/ she is compelled to pay such enormous bill otherwise his connection will be disconnected. Then the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint for redressal as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint.

        After perusing the documents and hearing the arguments it transpires that the complainant is a bonafide customer of the OP and she used to pay bill regularly. She is surprised at such huge bill and she informed the matter to the OP by letter to rectify the disputed bill but the OP took no measure except threatening her to disconnect the service line as a result the complainant became worried. The meter card shows the present reading as 8655 units on 05.01.2014 but the bill for the period Jan.- Mar.15 shows the present reading as 8643 on 5th Jan.2015. It is an admitted fact on the part of the OP that the meter reader could not attend the consumer regularly but the consumption of the complainant cannot be ousted so the complainant is liable to be paid the bills of the accumulated units.  The consumption of the complainant for the period January-March 15 depicts that consumption is 182 units and gross demands Rs. 376 each for three months and the said bill a sum of Rs.39636 has been charged and last bill paid Rs.826 on 01.12.2014. Complainant did not clear the disputed bill for the consumption period October-December,14 in which consumption units has shown as 6536 and quantum of bill of Rs.57,727.00. But next bill prepared for the consumption period January-March 15, where units consumed shown as 182 units but quantum of bill charged as Rs. 39283.00. It is not clear to us which bill amount is to be paid by the complainant. If the bill for the billing period January-March 15 is prepared taking the outstanding bill amount of Rs.57,727.00 has taken into consideration then why the amount has been reduced to Rs.39,636.00. On a comparative study of consumption of the complainant it appears that the average consumption of this complainant ranging from 3- 4 units per day. Then why this complainant will pay a huge amount of accumulated bill. There is no parity in between consumption and preparation of bills. The meter reader usually visits the consumers after a long gap and prepare fictitious bill on a false pretext regularly. So, the consumer suffers at the behest of the negligence of the employee of the OP Company.

                So, we are in a considered opinion to cancel the bills for the periods from Octo14 to December,14 and January ’15 –March’15 of this complainant with a direction to prepare a fresh bill for six months from October’14 to March ’15 taking the standard units 182 for three months and also to take slab benefits while preparing bill. The existing meter is to be replaced by new one. The complainant is also directed to inform the Jangipur CCC if bill is not prepared in consonance with the meter reading. The interim order dated 05.02.15 is vacated.

The inaction/ negligence/ discrepancies of the O.P. Company tantamount to deficiency in service for which the consumers are suffering a lot. Hence, OP had unnecessarily charged excessive electricity bill. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. So, the complaint as filed by the complainant succeeds and the relief(s) as prayed by the complainant is allowed in part.

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 beyond any doubt and the written version of the OP also contributed his role in such proof and the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the Complainant as we deem fit and proper.

5).Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) prayed for?         

       As it is already proved in the discussion at point No. 3, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party cannot be ousted and as such the complainant is entitled to get relief(s).

                                                                            ORDER

Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Opposite party.

                The sole OP is directed to prepare a fresh bill for the period from October’14 –March ’15 for six months taking slab benefit and to take 182 units as possible consumption of the complainant for three months and to cancel the disputed bills for the period October’14 –December’14 amounting to Rs.57,727 and Jan’15 to March’15 amounting to Rs.39,283.00. The answering OP ceased to collect or demand the arear bill for the disputed period. He is also directed to replace the existing meter by new one.

        At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.100/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 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 with A/D forthwith, for information & necessary action.

           Dictated and corrected by me.

       Member,                                                                      President, 

    District Consumer Disputes                                           District Consumer Disputes                                        

 Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.                                    Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.